aerospace

Article
Studies of Satellite Position Measurements of LEO CubeSat to
Identify the Motion Mode Relative to Its Center of Mass
Igor Belokonov *, Ivan Timbai and Petr Nikolaev

Department of Space Research, Samara National Research University, 34 Moskovskoye shosse,

443086 Samara, Russia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Highlights:
1. Study of LEO CubeSat dynamics using satellite position measurements.
2. Refinement of ballistic coefficient using satellite position measurements of close-flying CubeSats.

Abstract: This paper addresses the possibility of reconstructing motion relative to the center of
mass of a low Earth orbit (LEO) nanosatellite of the CubeSat 3U standard using satellite position
measurements (Two-Line Element Set (TLE)). This kind of task needs to be performed in the case
where it is not possible to establish radio communication with the nanosatellite after it is launched
into orbit. Therefore, it is important for the nanosatellite developers to develop some understanding
of what is going on with the nanosatellite in order to be able to analyze the current situation after
deployment. The study was carried out on the example of the aerodynamically stabilized SamSat-
218D nanosatellite developed by the professors and students of Samara National Research University.
SamSat-218D was launched into a near-circular orbit with an average altitude of 486 km on April
2016 during the first launch campaign from the Vostochny cosmodrome. Knowledge of CubeSat
aerodynamics allows estimating the nature of its possible motion relative to the CubeSat center of
mass by ballistic coefficient changes, evaluated with the use of satellite position measurements. The
analysis showed that SamSat-218D performed spatial rotation with an angular velocity of more than
two degree per second and had not stabilized aerodynamically by 2 March 2022, when it entered the
atmosphere and was destroyed.
Citation: Belokonov, I.; Timbai, I.;
Nikolaev, P. Studies of Satellite
Keywords: orbital motion; CubeSat; ballistic coefficient; atmospheric drag; satellite position
Position Measurements of LEO
measurements; aerodynamics; attitude control and stabilization
CubeSat to Identify the Motion Mode
Relative to Its Center of Mass.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378. https://
doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10040378
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Dario Modenini
Nowadays there is a large number of CubeSats launched into low Earth orbits
Received: 23 January 2023 (LEO) [1,2], often via piggyback launches [3–6]. Usually, only 60% of CubeSat launches
Revised: 4 April 2023 are successful [7–10]. Therefore, in a situation where the ground controllers are unable to
Accepted: 12 April 2023 contact the CubeSat, they can conduct a passive experiment to estimate CubeSat motion
Published: 18 April 2023 relative to its center of mass using NORAD Two-Line Element Sets (TLE) data [11].
CubeSats in LEO are affected by the following major torques: gravity gradient, aero-
dynamic, solar radiation, and magnetic torques. Taking into consideration the fact that
the number of 3U CubeSat launches is more than 40% of the total number [12], the aero-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
dynamic torque can often be used as a restoring one for them due to the increased static
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
stability margin [13,14]. Reference [15] shows the regions where the influence of the main
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
environmental torques prevail (Table 1). However, due to the design features of CubeSats,
conditions of the Creative Commons
the boundary between regions 1 and 2 rises to 450 km (valid for 10% of static stability
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// margin for 3U CubeSat with 0.3 m reference length), as shown in [13,16].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Some important features of the nanosatellite existence in low orbits are discussed
4.0/). in [16,17]: (i) Due to the aerodynamic torque, the angular acceleration of a nanosatellite is

Aerospace 2023, 10, 378. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10040378 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 2 of 20

much greater than that of a satellite with larger dimensions and mass (for the same values
of the relative static stability margin and bulk density). This expands the range of altitudes
at which the aerodynamic torque acting on the nanosatellite is significant and can be used
for passive stabilization along the velocity vector of the center of mass. (ii) The value of the
ballistic coefficient of a nanosatellite is higher than that of a satellite with larger dimensions
and mass (with the same bulk density), which leads to a decrease in its lifetime in orbit. It
makes it possible to use LEO effectively and avoid clogging of near-Earth space. (iii) The
value of the ballistic coefficient of a nanosatellite substantially depends on its orientation.
The ratio of the maximum value of a 3U CubeSat ballistic coefficient to the minimum value
is 4.75. This fact makes it possible to gain information about the CubeSat attitude and
dynamics from the ballistic coefficient. Table 2 compares the main features of CubeSats
discussed above.

Table 1. Classification of regions for the influence of environmental torques.

Regions of Influence Altitude Range Environmental Effects

Aerodynamic torques dominate
Region I Below 300 km
angular motions
Aerodynamic and gravitational torques are
Region II From 300 to 650 km
comparable
Aerodynamic, gravitational, and solar torques
Region III From 650 to 1000 km
are comparable
Solar and gravitational torques dominate
Region IV Above 1000 km
angular motions

Table 2. Comparison of 3U CubeSat SamSat-218D and microsatellite AIST 2D.

SamSat-218D (3U AIST 2D (Micro

Feature
CubeSat) Satellite)
Maximum angular acceleration at 480 km
1.8 × 10−6 ~10−8
altitude caused by aerodynamic torque, (s−2 )
Averaged ballistic coefficient, (m2 /kg) 0.048 0.0227
Ratio of the maximum value of ballistic
4.75 ~1.73
coefficient to the minimum one

Estimation of CubeSat motion relative to the center of mass using satellite position
measurements is conceptually similar to the approaches applied to the development and
refinement of atmospheric density assimilation models. However, in our study, we needed
to know the atmospheric density in order to estimate the ballistic coefficient.
In this paper, it is important to note that the atmosphere is affected by solar and
geomagnetic activities, meaning that the existing models of the atmosphere [18–24] differ
from the actual atmosphere by 10–30% or more, as shown in [25]; therefore, atmospheric
models require refinement based on real orbital data.
Existing empirical atmospheric models are formed and complemented by density esti-
mation using satellite position measurements. Satellites carrying out such measurements
include Russian series of spherical satellites Pion [26], Atmospheric Neutral Density Ex-
periment (ANDE) [27], Drag and Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer (DANDE) [28,29],
SpinSat [30], Chinese spherical microsatellite [31], and QB50 missions [32,33].
Atmospheric density estimation is performed using mass spectrometers [34–36], ac-
celerometers [37–39], satellite position measurements (obtained by GPS, TLEs) [39–41], and
satellite laser ranging (SLR) [42] from Earth.
As an example, satellite position measurements in the form of TLE files were used
in [43] to correct the thermosphere model. The main disadvantage of such data is the
low time resolution of TLE files—-1–3 measurements per day—-with an accuracy of
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 3 of 20

100–200 m [44]. It is possible to use TLE files, where the data are averaged over a cer-
tain interval. In this way the authors of the study [45] estimated and analyzed the space
debris ballistic coefficients using a large number of TLE files.
In the case that several CubeSats are launched as a piggyback payload, if at least one
of them has a known value of ballistic coefficient and parameters of motion relative to the
center of mass, this CubeSat can be considered as a reference satellite. Then, it is admissible
to conduct an experiment to reconstruct the motion parameters relative to the CubeSat
center of mass via satellite position measurements based on a priori information about the
reference satellite.
In this paper, we propose a method for solving the inverse problem of a CubeSat
ballistic coefficient estimation using the refined density of the atmosphere. The new method
has two main components: (i) the study of CubeSat ballistic coefficient value changes; and
(ii) the identification and study of the most probable nanosatellite motion relative to the
center of mass based on the design features of CubeSats.
The method described in this paper is close to those reported in [17,46], which present
a comprehensive analysis of the SamSat-218D ballistic coefficient variation during its first
100 days in the Earth orbit. In these papers, AIST-2D was considered as a reference satellite
as long as both of them shared the same orbit. Reference [47] discusses the results obtained
for the changes in the SamSat-218D nanosatellite ballistic coefficient during its five-year
orbiting period. The consideration of the Chinese Tianwang constellation as an additional
reference satellite along with AIST-2D made it possible to increase the reliability of the
results obtained.
As a logical continuation of the work [47], the present study generalizes and refines
the previously obtained results; in addition, for the first time, it presents the results of
the study on ballistic coefficient changes throughout the satellite lifetime in orbit from the
launch to the moment it reentered Earth’s atmosphere and was subsequently destroyed,
which occurred approximately on 2 March 2022.

2. Problem Formulation
We consider a common situation: a group of satellites including CubeSats are launched
into similar orbits as piggyback payloads. One of the satellites has an attitude determination
and control system, and its mean ballistic coefficient is known. We consider this satellite
as a reference one, and the CubeSat of interest to us will be henceforth referred to as a
“considered” CubeSat. Moreover, it should be noted that the satellite position measurements
of all satellites that we used are represented as TLE files.
After the launch of the satellite group into orbit, it is possible to use the known ballistic
coefficient of the reference satellite to refine the atmospheric density, and these data are
used to estimate the ballistic coefficient of the considered CubeSat.
Assuming that the CubeSat ballistic coefficient exceeds that of the reference satellite,
within 2–3 months after the launch, the difference between the atmospheric layers in which
both satellites are orbiting the Earth is growing, which requires the adjustment of the
atmospheric density. As an example of such an adjustment, the State Technical Standard
for atmospheric density (GOST 25645.101-83: Earth upper atmosphere. Density model for
project ballistic computations of artificial Earth satellites) was used in [45,46] to adjust the
atmospheric density to the relevant altitude, and in [47], the authors describe the use of
the atmospheric model NRLMSISE-00 as a reference. In the present work, we also used
NRLMSISE-00 model for similar adjustments.
When considering a short time interval (the first 100 days), we do not need to correct
the atmosphere, instead, we can use the density values determined from the ballistic
coefficient and position measurements of the reference satellite sharing the same orbit. On
a longer study interval, when the satellite orbit heights do not differ much, it is acceptable
to use a simple model to correct the atmosphere [45,46]. With a significant difference in
satellite orbit heights, it is necessary to use a dynamic model of the Earth’s atmosphere, as
proposed in [47].
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 4 of 20

With the further divergence of atmospheric layers, it is advisable to involve satellite

position measurements from 1U CubeSats flying in a close formation. Since they move
mostly uncontrollably, their average ballistic coefficients can be calculated. Using these
data, it is expedient to study the nature of the considered CubeSat motion within the same
altitude region as for the reference satellites.

3. Data and Methods

The main operation in the current study is the calculation of orbital radius r derived
from the TLE data [11] in the case of a circular orbit:
q
r = a = µ/(n · 43200/π )2
3
(1)

where a (km) is the semi-major axis; µ = 398,602 km3 s−2 is the Earth’s gravitational param-
eter; and n (rev/day) is the mean motion.
Satellite orbit perturbations caused by the aerodynamic acceleration Φ for a circular
orbit are described by the formula [15]:

r 0 = 2r r/µ · Φ,
p
(2)

where r 0 is the derivative of a radius-vector.

The aerodynamic acceleration Φ is expressed as:

Φ = − Bρv2 /2, (3)

where B (m2 /kg) is the ballistic coefficient; ρ is the atmospheric density; and v = (µ/r)0.5
(km/s) is the satellite velocity in the case of a circular orbit.
Using Equations (2) and (3), the ballistic coefficient is calculated as:
√
B = −r 0 /ρ µr. (4)

Motion relative to the mass center can be represented as the spatial rotation of the
body frame Oxyz relative to the orbital frame OXYZ.
In the orbital frame OXYZ, center O coincides with the CubeSat mass center, the OZ
axis is directed from the Earth center OE in the direction of the radius-vector r, the OY axis
is coaxial with the direction of the vector of the true anomaly derivative, and the OX axis
complements the orbital coordinate system to the right one.
In the body frame Oxyz, center O coincides with the CubeSat mass center, Ox is the
longitudinal axis, and Oy and Oz are transversal axes. The axes are chosen in such a way
that the main moments of inertia of the CubeSat satisfy relation Jx ≤ Jy ≤ Jz .
The Euler angles are used here to represent Oxyz attitude relative to OXYZ:
- ψ (precession angle) is a signed angle between the OY axis and the OX × Ox unit
vector;
- α (angle of attack) is the angle between the longitudinal axis Ox and the velocity vector
(OX axis for a circular orbit); and
- ϕ (proper rotation angle) is a signed angle between the OX × Ox unit vector and the
Oy axis.
We predicted orbital motion between two ephemerides with a simplified perturbation
model SGP4 [48] along with the Runge-Kutta method (RK4) for numerical integration [49],
taking into account only gravitational acceleration. These satellite position measurements
are used to calculate atmospheric density by an empirical global reference atmospheric
model of the Earth NRLMSISE-00 [23] in each point of orbit with a 60-s step. To calculate
the derivative of the orbital radius, we used the smoothing spline method [50] and the
finite difference method [49] coherently.
To estimate the possible modes of CubeSat motion relative to the center of mass, we
used an approximate model of the angular motion of a dynamically symmetric CubeSat in
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 5 of 20

the plane of a circular orbit relative to the trajectory coordinate system, which describes
the changes in the angle of attack caused by the gravitational and aerodynamic restoring
torques [51]:
α00 − a( H ) sin α − c( H ) sin 2α = 0, (5)
where a(H) = a0 Slρv2 /(2Jx ) is the coefficient due to the aerodynamic recovery moment;
c(H) = 3(Jx − Jtr )µ/(2r3 Jx ) is the coefficient due to the gravitational moment; H is a flight
altitude; a0 is the coefficient for approximation by sinusoidal dependence of the aerody-
namic recovery moment coefficient; l is a characteristic length; S is a characteristic area; Jx
is a longitudinal main moment of inertia; and Jtr is a transversal main moment of inertia.
To clarify the general properties of the system of Equation (5), we used the phase
plane method. The changes in the altitude of the circular orbit due to atmospheric drag
are very slow, and when considering the angular motion of the CubeSat on one or several
revolutions, we can take H = const. In this case, for Equation (5), the energy integral E0
takes the form:
2
α0 /2 + a cos α + c cos2 α = E0 . (6)
The nature of the CubeSat motion is determined by the ratio of the quantities a, c, and
E0 . In the case of a < 0, c > 0, there are two kinds of phase portraits: the first is (i) |a| ≥ 2c
(aerodynamic torque is predominant). In this case, the CubeSat has two equilibrium po-
sitions for the angle of attack: stable with α = 0 + 2nπ (n = 0, ±1, ±2, . . . ) and unstable
with α = π + 2nπ (n = 0, ±1, ±2, . . . ) (a schematic view of the phase portrait is shown in
Figure 1a). The rotational motion mode of the CubeSat corresponds to the condition of
E0 > −a + c (Figure 1a, phase trajectory 1) and the oscillatory motion mode relative to stable
equilibrium α = 0 + 2nπ (n = 0, ±1, ±2, . . . ) corresponds to the condition of E0 < −a + c
(Figure 1a, phase trajectory 2). The regions of possible motions are separated by a separatrix c
(Figure 1a, phase trajectory 3). The second is (ii) c > 0.5|a| (gravitational moment is predomi-
nant). With this ratio, there are four regions of the CubeSat motion: a rotational region and
three oscillatory regions (a schematic view of the phase portrait is shown in Figure 1b). The
CubeSat has four equilibrium positions for the angle of attack: α* = ±arccos (−0.5a/c) + 2nπ
(n = 0, ±1, ±2, . . . ), α = 0 + 2nπ (n = 0, ±1, ±2, . . . ), and α = π + 2nπ (n = 0, ±1, ±2, . . . ).
The CubeSat rotational motion mode corresponds to the condition of E0 > −a + c (Figure 1b,
phase trajectory 1); the oscillatory motion mode relative to the equilibrium position α = 0
+ 2nπ (n = 0, ±1, ±2, . . . ) corresponds to the condition of −a + c < E0 > a + c (Figure 1b,
phase trajectory 2); and the oscillatory motion mode relative to the equilibrium position α*
corresponds to the condition of E0 < a + c (Figure 1b, phase trajectory 3). The regions of
possible motion modes are separated by separatrices (Figure 1b, phase trajectories 4 and 5).
To verify the results obtained by the planar model [51], as well as to consider the study
case of large angular velocities, we used a full model of spatial motion [52].
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 6 of 20

Figure 1. (a) Phase portrait (|a| ≥ 2c), here lines 1 are phase trajectories of rotation motion mode, line
2 is phase trajectory of oscillatory motion mode and line 3 is separatrix; (b) phase portrait (c > 0.5|a|),
here lines 1 are phase trajectories of rotation motion mode, line 2 is phase trajectory of oscillatory
motion mode relative to the equilibrium position α, lines 3 are phase trajectories of oscillatory motion
mode relative to the equilibrium position α*, lines 4 and 5 are separatrices.

4. Method for Identification of the CubeSat Motion Mode Relative to the Mass Center
The main idea of indirect determination of the motion nature relative to the CubeSat
center of mass is to apply data on the variable ballistic coefficient of the considered CubeSat
to the entire research interval. In order to achieve this goal, we propose the method for
estimating the CubeSat ballistic coefficient using satellite position measurements (Figure 2).
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 7 of 20

Figure 2. Procedures for identification of CubeSat motion mode relative to the mass center.

The method includes the following steps:

(1) Calculation of the radius-vectors using the satellite position measurements repre-
sented as TLE files for the reference and considered satellites as in Equation (1). Smoothing
by a cubic smoothing spline with smoothing parameter p = 0.95 (selected value provides an
acceptable interpolation with the removal of high-frequency noise) and re-discretization
with time step ∆t equal to one day of the radius-vector data of the reference and considered
satellites. Calculation of the radius-vector derivative for the reference and considered
satellites. Calculation of the “drag parameter” Di (here it is just a change of variables to
further simplify calculations) for the reference and considered satellites:

∆ri 1
Di = − ·√ , (7)
∆t µri

where ∆ri /∆t is the numerical derivative of the radius vector.

Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 8 of 20

(2) Prediction of orbital motion between TLE ephemeris. Calculation of the atmo-
spheric density ρmodel in each point of orbit using the dynamic model NRLMSISE00. Aver-
aging of ρmodel on each day:

86400R·(i +1)
ρmodel (t)dt
86400·i
ρmodel,i = . (8)
86400
(3) Calculation of the ballistic coefficient for the reference and considered satellites:

Di
Bmodel,i = . (9)
ρmodel,i

(4) In the case when the altitudes of the reference and considered satellites are close and
the ballistic coefficient of the reference satellite is known as Bref , it is possible to calculate
the density at the altitude of the reference satellite:

Dre f ,i
ρre f ,model,i = (10)
Bre f ,i

and the corrected ballistic coefficient of the considered CubeSat:

ρre f ,model,i
Bcon,cor,i = Bcon,model,i · . (11)
ρre f ,i

After substitution of Equation (10) into Equation (11), we obtain:

Dcon , i ρre f ,model,i

Bcon,cor,i = · . (12)
Dre f ,i ρcon,model,i

(5) In the case when the orbits of the reference and considered satellites strongly
diverge, the ballistic coefficient of the considered CubeSat changes significantly (usually
increases), which contradicts the physical sense. Then, we use the data of the other satellite,
the one closest to the considered one and referred to as the second reference satellite.
The ballistic coefficient of this satellite must be approximately constant. It is necessary to
calculate the calibrated ballistic coefficient of the second reference satellite Bref 2,cor using
Equation (12), substituting the considered CubeSat for the second reference satellite.
While the altitudes of the considered and the second reference satellite are close,
the changes in their ballistic coefficients have the same nature. For instance, the ballistic
coefficients of the considered and the second reference satellites will constantly grow after
step (5), when these two satellites are orbiting on much lower orbits than the reference
satellite.
Then, the first-degree polynomial smoothing of the corrected ballistic coefficient of the
second reference satellite is carried out using the least squares method [49]:

Bre f 2,cor,sm (i ) = are f 2 · i + bre f 2 , (13)

where aref2 is the slope coefficient or gradient of the line; bref2 is the B-intercept of the line.
Hence, we derive the corrected ballistic coefficient of the considered satellite by the
formula:
∗
Bcon,cor (i ) = Bcon,cor (i ) − are f 2 · i. (14)
(6) Study of the estimated ballistic coefficient to identify the motion mode relative to
the center of mass. Here, we need to answer two questions: Does the ballistic coefficient
have a constant value? Are there any stepped changes in the ballistic coefficient? The
answers to these questions allow us to estimate the angular velocity of CubeSat and
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 9 of 20

determine the motion mode, which will provide the information about conditions for
CubeSat deployment into orbit.

5. Calculation
5.1. The First Launch from Vostochny
We verified the proposed method by studying the piggyback launch of 3U CubeSat
SamSat-218D (Samara University, Samara, Russia) [53] together with satellites AIST-2D
(Progress Rocket Space Centre, Samara, Russia) [54] and Lomonosov (Moscow State Uni-
versity, Moscow, Russia) [55] placed into orbit by the Soyuz-2.1a carrier rocket that started
from the Vostochny Cosmodrome on April 28, 2016 [56]. Figure 3 shows all three satellites
installed inside the payload fairing [57,58]. The initial altitude was 486 km; inclination was
97.3 deg; and eccentricity was 0.001.

Figure 3. Payload fairing with Lomonosov, AIST-2D, and SamSat-218D satellites installed [58].

The primary payload, Lomonosov or MVL-300, is an astrophysics research satel-

lite. The Lomonosov project was initiated and carried out by Lomonosov Moscow State
University. The main objective of the mission was the observation of gamma-ray bursts,
high-energy cosmic rays and transient phenomena in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Table 3
presents some of the main parameters of the satellite.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 10 of 20

Table 3. Main parameters of Lomonosov.

Parameter Value
NORAD ID 41,464
Mass, kg 625
ADCS triaxial

The second payload AIST-2D is an experimental small spacecraft developed jointly

by engineers of the Rocket Space Center “Progress” (RSC Progress) and Samara State
Aerospace University. AIST-2D was designed for Earth observation, as well as for scientific
research [59]. The main parameters of the satellite are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Main parameters of AIST-2D.

Parameter Value
NORAD ID 41,465
Mass, kg 531
ADCS Triaxial
B, m2 /kg 0.0227

The third payload SamSat-218D (Figure 4) is the first nanosatellite designed by stu-
dents and professors of Samara State Aerospace University to develop and test the technol-
ogy of creating a closed-loop control for its spatial orientation with a large static stability
margin. Table 5 presents the main parameters of the satellite.

Figure 4. The laboratory photo of SamSat-218D.

Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 11 of 20

Table 5. Main parameters of SamSat-218D.

Parameter Value
NORAD ID 41,466
Deployment angle, deg
80 (in orbital plane)
(initial angle of attack in orbital plane)
Deployment angular velocity, deg/s Unspecified
Mass, kg 1.82
Main inertia moments, kg·m2 0.00402; 0.01422; 0.01454
Static stability margin, m 0.06

5.2. Results and Discussion

Figure 5 demonstrates the changes in the altitudes of satellite orbits within the time
interval from 28 April 2016 to 2 March 2022. By the end of that period, the average altitude
of SamSat-218D was 330 km.

Figure 5. Changes in the satellite altitudes calculated using TLE files: MVL-300, AIST-2D, and
SamSat-218D.

We earlier discussed the first 100-day period of the SamSat-218D motion described
in [45], where we suggested that the possible motion relative to the SamSat-218D center
of mass within that period was transitional motion mode between different equilibrium
positions of the angle of attack. Here, we consider the updated results based on the six-year
SamSat-218D satellite position measurements.
We used the first three steps of the proposed method in the processing of SamSat-218D,
AIST-2D and MVL-300 data. Figure 6 demonstrates the results of the third step, namely,
the ballistic coefficients estimated while accounting for the estimated drag data (satellite
position measurements represented as TLE files) and the NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric density
model. All these data series are highly correlated (correlation coefficient of MVL-300 Bmodel
and AIST-2D satellites is 0.80; and the correlation coefficient of SamSat-218D Bmodel and
AIST-2D satellites is 0.96). The noise in the plots of Figure 6 is due to the errors in the
coordinates determined in the TLE file processing and the differences between the values of
the model atmospheric density and the estimated one, caused by a short-period variation
of solar activity.
Nevertheless, AIST-2D retained its orientation, and its ballistic coefficient is approxi-
mately constant (Bref = 0.0227 m2 /kg). Therefore, we corrected the ballistic coefficient of
SamSat-218D according to Step 4 (Figure 7). According to Step 5, the SamSat-218D ballistic
coefficient was increasing and the slope coefficient of line smoothing aref2 = 3.51 × 10−6 ,
which was caused by the increased difference in the atmospheric layers between the alti-
tudes of AIST-2D and SamSat-218D.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 12 of 20

Figure 6. Estimated ballistic coefficients of (a) MVL-300, (b) AIST-2D, and (c) SamSat-218D.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 13 of 20

Figure 7. The corrected ballistic coefficient of SamSat-218D (Step 4).

To correct the ballistic coefficient further, we used the data of the Chinese Tianwang
constellation consisting of three CubeSats launched on 25 September 2015 [60]. Figure 8
demonstrates the altitudes of SamSat-218D, AIST-2D, and MVL-300 compared to Tianwang-
1A, Tianwang-1B, and Tianwang-1C CubeSats.

Figure 8. Changes in the altitudes of the satellites calculated using TLE files: MVL-300, AIST-2D,
Tianwang-1A, SamSat-218D, Tianwang-1B, and Tianwang-1C.

Tianwang-1A is a 3U CubeSat with a 3-axis stabilized attitude determination and

control subsystem and a micro-propulsion module. Tianwang-1B is a 2U CubeSat, with its
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 14 of 20

main payload being an AIS receiver, to receive marine traffic information of the ground.
Tianwang-1C is a standard 2U CubeSat with an ADS-B receiver as its main payload to
monitor civilian aircraft flying within the nadir space region of the satellite. Apparently,
owing to the attitude determination and control subsystem, Tianwang-1A was kept close to
the aerodynamic equilibrium position, and despite a rather dense internal layout, its orbital
lifetime was longer than those of the other two CubeSats from the joint launch. Tianwang-
1B and Tianwang-1C must have been rotating uncontrollably until they deorbited. The
fall in the SamSat-218D altitude is similar to the fall in the altitudes of Tianwang-1B and
Tianwang-1C, which may be indicative of a similar nature of angular motion.
We calculated the corrected ballistic coefficients of six satellites (except AIST-2D) and
approximated them by line polynomials. Figure 9 shows the dependency of the slope
coefficient of the smoothed ballistic coefficient data on the mean drag coefficient. The slope
coefficient of SamSat-218D was close to those of Tianwang-1B and Tianwang-1C. Therefore,
we used the Tianwang-1C data for further correction of the coefficients at Step 5.

Figure 9. The slope coefficient of the ballistic coefficient data dependency on the mean drag coefficient
within the measurement period.

The results of the final correction of the SamSat-218D ballistic coefficient are shown
in Figure 10. The mean ballistic coefficient is 0.047 m2 /kg with the standard deviation of
0.013 m2 /kg (such level of noise caused by the errors in determining the coordinates and the
differences between the values of the model atmospheric density and the estimated one).

Figure 10. The corrected ballistic coefficient of SamSat-218D (Step 5).

Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 15 of 20

After the experimental estimation of the SamSat-218D ballistic coefficient, it was

necessary to determine the nature of its angular motion. To do this, we estimated the
ratio of the maximum aerodynamic moment to the maximum gravitational moment (it
is equal to the ratio of |a(H)/c(H)| from Equation (5)) by simulating plane motion using
the SamSat-218D altitude and average atmospheric density derived at the previous steps
(Figure 11). The ratio obtained is indicative of the environmental conditions of SamSat-218D
during the observation period.

Figure 11. The ratio of the maximum aerodynamic torque to maximum gravitational torque.

The graph in Figure 11 can be divided into two time intervals:

(1) from the launch date to November 2020. It is characterized by comparable values
of the gravitational and aerodynamic torques;
(2) from November 2020 to March 2022. This interval is noted by domination of
aerodynamic torque caused by the decrease in the altitude and the increase in solar activity.
Taking into consideration the obtained ratio, we carried out a simulation using an
approximate model of angular motion in the orbital plane, assuming a low angular velocity
of 0.1 deg/s for the initial deployment angle of 80 deg (Table 5) and using a refined
atmosphere in order to check whether the SamSat-218D motion was aerodynamically
stabilized. Figure 12 shows the simulated angle of attack and the simulated time-dependent
ballistic coefficient for this time interval.
The simulated ballistic coefficient is approximately equal to the experimental one
within the time from the launch date to November 2020 (interval 1). The gravitational
torque slightly exceeds the aerodynamic one, which causes oscillations relative to the
equilibrium position. However, within the time from November 2020 to March 2022
(interval 2), the ballistic coefficient differs from the experimental one (Figure 10) due to
the aerodynamic torque exceeding the gravitational torque and oscillations relative to the
value of α = 0.
The coincidence of the simulated ballistic coefficient with the experimental one within
time interval 1 is due to the fact that the density of the atmosphere remained practically
unchanged. This is explained by the compensation for the decrease in altitude (leads
to increase in density) under conditions of solar activity decrease (leads to decrease in
density). As a result, the density value did not change very much. However, within
interval 2, the divergence between the simulated (Figure 12b) and experimental (Figure 10)
ballistic coefficients means that the previous assumption about the angular motion of the
SamSat-218D around stable aerodynamic equilibrium position was false.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 16 of 20

Figure 12. (a) The simulated angle of attack and (b) the simulated time-dependent ballistic coefficient
(angular velocity is 0.1 deg/s).

The fact that the ballistic coefficient remained constant throughout the entire time
interval, despite a sharp increase in the ratio of the maximum aerodynamic torque to
the maximum gravitational torque within time interval 2, indicates that the SamSat-218D
was rotating uncontrollably. Therefore, we used the spatial model of the CubeSat angular
motion and determined the angular velocity (2 deg/s) so that the ballistic coefficient
simulated by this model coincided with the experimental one over the entire time interval.
An illustration of the simulated spatial uncontrollable motion is shown as a hodograph
(the motion of the SamSat-218D longitudinal axis represented on a sphere, Figure 13). The
mean ballistic coefficient is 0.047 m2 /kg with the standard deviation of 0.0005 m2 /kg.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 17 of 20

Figure 13. Hodograph of the CubeSat longitudinal axis relative to the trajectory coordinate system
on a single sphere for the initial angular velocity of 2 deg/s.

6. Conclusions
A method has been proposed to solve the inverse problem of estimating the ballistic
coefficient of a CubeSat using the refined atmospheric density. The consideration of
reference satellites sharing the same orbit or moving in close orbits enables an essentially
accurate prediction of the motion mode of aerodynamically stabilized CubeSats and testing
of their design concepts.
The method was verified using the long-term (2016–2022) SamSat-218D CubeSat
position measurements. The ballistic coefficient depending on the descent altitude was
reconstructed based on the design specifications of SamSat-218D (geometry, mass, moments
of inertia, and static stability margin).
Since the end of 2020, we have seen that the aerodynamic torque significantly exceeds
the gravitational torque; nevertheless, the ballistic coefficient remains constant. This fact
indicates that the SamSat-218D motion mode relative to the center of mass is represented
as uncontrolled spatial motion with the angular velocity of about two degree per second.
Using the proposed method to determine the motion mode of a CubeSat, we can refine
its orbital lifetime.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.B. and P.N.; methodology, I.B., I.T. and P.N.; software,
I.T. and P.N.; validation, P.N.; formal analysis, I.T.; investigation, I.T. and P.N.; resources, P.N.; data
curation, I.T. and P.N.; writing—original draft preparation, P.N.; writing—review and editing, I.B., I.T.
and P.N.; visualization, P.N.; supervision, I.B.; project administration, I.B.; funding acquisition, I.B.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 18 of 20

Funding: This research was supported by the state funding under grant number 0777-2020-0018.
Grant recipients were selected from the competition involving research laboratories of higher ed-
ucational institutions subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian
Federation.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

TLE Two-Line Element set;

SGP4 Simplified Perturbations Model;
RK4 classic Runge–Kutta method;
LEO Low Earth Orbit.

References
1. Guo, J.; Pang, W.J.; Bo, B.; Meng, X.; Yu, X.; Zhou, J. Boom of the CubeSat: A statistic survey of Cubsats launch in 2003–2015. In
Proceedings of the 67th International Astronautical Congress IAC-16-E2.4.5, Guadalajara, Mexico, 30 September 2016.
2. Bryce Tech. Smallsats by the Numbers 2021. 2021. Available online: https://brycetech.com/reports/report-documents/Bryce_
Smallsats_2021.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2022).
3. Ariane 6. 2019. Available online: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Launch_vehicles/Ariane_6
(accessed on 26 January 2022).
4. Rideshare Service for Light Satellites to Launch on Vega. 2020. Available online: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_
Transportation/Rideshare_service_for_light_satellites_to_launch_on_Vega (accessed on 26 January 2022).
5. JAXA Signs an Agreement with an Enterprise for Piggyback Launch Opportunities for Small Satellites. 2019. Available online:
https://global.jaxa.jp/press/2019/12/20191204b.html (accessed on 26 January 2022).
6. Mann, A. Rocket Lab: Private Spaceflight for Tiny Satellites. 2021. Available online: https://www.space.com/rocket-lab.html
(accessed on 26 January 2022).
7. Bouwmeester, J.; Guo, J. Survey of worldwide pico- and nanosatellite missions, distributions and subsystem technology. Acta
Astronaut. 2010, 67, 854–862. [CrossRef]
8. Swartwout, M. The First One Hundred CubeSats: A Statistical Look. J. Small Satell. 2013, 2, 213–233. Available online: https:
//jossonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/0202-The-First-One-Hundred-Cubesats.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2022).
9. Swartwout, M. CubeSats and Mission Success: 2017 Update. In Proceedings of the 2016 Electronics Technology Workshop,
Greenbelt, MD, USA, 26–29 June 2017; Saint Louis University: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2017. Available online: https://nepp.nasa.
gov/workshops/etw2017/talks/28-JUN-WED/0900%20-%20swartwout%20etw%202017.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2022).
10. Venturi, C.; Tolmasoff, M. Improving Mission Success of CubeSats; Aerospace Report; No. TOR-2017-01689; Aerospace Corporation:
El Segundo, CA, USA, 2017; Available online: https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/TOR-2017-01689%20-%2
0Improving%20Mission%20Success%20of%20CubeSats.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2022).
11. NORAD Two-Line Element Sets Current Data. Available online: https://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/ (accessed on
26 January 2022).
12. Kulu, E. Nanosats Database. Available online: https://www.nanosats.eu/ (accessed on 26 January 2022).
13. Belokonov, I.V.; Timbai, I.A.; Barinova, E.V. Design Parameters Selection for CubeSat Nanosatellite with a Passive Stabilization
System. Gyroscopy Navig. 2020, 11, 149–161. [CrossRef]
14. Riano-Rios, C.; Sun, R.; Bevilacqua, R.; Dixon, W.E. Aerodynamic and gravity gradient based attitude control for CubeSats in the
presence of environmental and spacecraft uncertainties. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 180, 439–450. [CrossRef]
15. Schrello, D.M.; Davidson, P.H.; Juelich, O.C. Passive Aerodynamic Attitude Stabilization of Near-Earth Satellites, Volume I. Librations
Due to Combined Aerodynamic and Gravitational Torques; WADD Technical Report 61-133; Aeronautical Systems Division, Air Force
Systems Command, US Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Dayton, OH, USA, 1961.
16. Belokonov, I.V.; Timbai, I.A.; Nikolaev, P.N. Analysis and Synthesis of Motion of Aerodynamically Stabilized Nanosatellites of the
CubeSat Design. Gyroscopy Navig. 2018, 9, 287–300. [CrossRef]
17. Belokonov, I.V.; Timbai, I.A.; Nikolaev, P.N. Approach for Estimation of Nanosatellite’s Motion Concerning of Mass Centre by
Trajectory Measurements (IAA-B12-0703). In Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, Berlin,
Germany, 6–10 May 2019; Sandau, R., Brieß, K., Gill, E., Eds.; IAA Book Series. International Academy of Astronautics: Paris,
France, 2020; Volume 2, pp. 210–217. Available online: https://iaaspace.org/wp-content/uploads/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/
conf/sseo2021/berlin2019proceedings.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2022).
18. Vallado, D.A.; Finkleman, D. A critical assessment of satellite drag and atmospheric density modelling. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 95,
141–165. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 19 of 20

19. Jacchia, L. Atmospheric Models in the Region from 110 to 2000 km. In CIRA 1972: COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere
1972; Akademie-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1972; pp. 227–338.
20. Berger, C.; Biancale, R.; Barlier, F. Improvement of the empirical thermospheric model DTM: DTM-94—A comparative review of
various temporal variations and prospects in space geodesy applications. J. Geod. 1998, 72, 161–178. [CrossRef]
21. Bruinsma, S.; Thuillier, G.; Barlier, F. The DTM-2000 empirical thermosphere model with new data assimilation and constraints at
lower boundary: Accuracy and properties. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 2003, 65, 1053–1070. [CrossRef]
22. Hedin, A.E. MSIS-86 thermospheric model. J. Geophys. Res. 1987, 92, 4649–4662. [CrossRef]
23. Hedin, A. Extension of the MSIS thermospheric model into the middle and lower atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 1991, 96, 1159–1172.
[CrossRef]
24. Picone, J.; Hedin, A.; Drob, D.; Aikin, A. NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific
issues. J. Geophys. Res. 2002, 107, SIA 15-1–SIA 15-16. [CrossRef]
25. Marcos, F.A.; Bowman, B.R.; Sheehan, R.E. Accuracy of Earth’s thermospheric neutral density models. In Proceedings of the
AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Keystone, CO, USA, 21–26 August 2006. [CrossRef]
26. Krebs Gunter, D. “Pion”. Gunter’s Space Page. Available online: https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/pion.htm (accessed on
26 January 2022).
27. Nicholas, A.C.; Gilbreath, G.C.; Thonnard, S.E.; Kessel, R.A.; Lucke, R.; Sillman, C.P. The Atmospheric Neutral Density
Experiment (ANDE) and Modulating Retroreflector in Space (MODRAS): Combined flight experiments for the space test program.
In Proceedings of the Optics in Atmospheric Propagation and Adaptive Systems V, Crete, Greece, 20 March 2003; Volume 4884.
[CrossRef]
28. Pilinski, M.D.; Palo, S.E. An Innovative Method for Measuring Drag on Small Satellites. In Proceedings of the 23th Annual
AAIA/USU Conference on Small Satellite, Logan, UT, USA, 10–13 August 2009; Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=smallsat (accessed on 26 January 2022).
29. Pilinski, M.D. Analysis of a Novel Approach for Determining Atmospheric Density from Satellite Drag. Master’s Thesis,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, 2008.
30. Nicholas, A.; Finne, T.; Galysh, J. SpinSat mission overview. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual AAIA/USU Conference on Small
Satellite, Logan, UT, USA, 19–22 September 2013.
31. Zhao, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y. A Spherical Micro Satellite Design and Detection Method for Upper Atmospheric Density Estimation.
Int. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1758956. [CrossRef]
32. Thoemel, J.; Singarayar, F.; Scholz, T.; Masutti, D. Status of the QB50 cubesat constellation mission. In Proceedings of the 65th
International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, ON, Canada, 21 January 2014.
33. Belokonov, I.V.; Ivanov, D.S.; Ovchinnikov, M.Y.; Pen’kov, V.I. Passive System for the Angular Damping of the SAMSAT-QB50
Nanosattelite. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 2019, 58, 774–785. [CrossRef]
34. Nier, A.O.; Potter, W.E.; Hickman, D.R.; Mauersberger, K. The open-source neutral-mass spectrometer on Atmosphere Explorer-C,
-D, and -E. Radio Sci. 1973, 8, 271–276. [CrossRef]
35. Hoffman, J.H.; Hanson, W.B.; Lippincott, C.R.; Ferguson, E.E. The magnetic ion-mass spectrometer on Atmosphere Explorer.
Radio Sci. 1973, 8, 315–322. [CrossRef]
36. Niemann, H.B. An atomic oxygen beam system for the investigation of mass spectrometer response in the upper atmosphere. Rev.
Sci. Instrum. 1972, 43, 1151–1161. [CrossRef]
37. Emmert, J.T. Thermospheric mass density: A review. Adv. Space Res. 2015, 56, 773–824. [CrossRef]
38. Champion, K.S.W.; Marcos, F.A. The triaxial-accelerometer system on atmosphere explorer. Radio Sci. 1973, 8, 297–303. [CrossRef]
39. Doornbos, E. Thermospheric Density and Wind Determination from Satellite Dynamics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delft,
Delft, The Netherlands, 2011.
40. Vallado, D.A.; Crawford, P. SGP4 orbit determination. In Proceedings of the AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
and Exhibit, Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 August 2008. [CrossRef]
41. Shi, C.; Li, W.; Li, M.; Zhao, Q.; Sang, J. Calibrating the scale of the NRLMSISE00 model during solar maximum using the two line
elements dataset. Adv. Space Res. 2015, 56, 1–9. [CrossRef]
42. Krzysztof, S. Impact of the atmospheric drag on Starlette, Stella, Ajisai, and Lares Orbits. Artif. Satell. 2015, 50, 1–18. [CrossRef]
43. Doornbos, E.; Klinkrad, H.; Visser, P. Use of two-line element data for thermosphere neutral density model calibration. Adv. Space
Res. 2008, 41, 1115–1122. [CrossRef]
44. Li, B.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, J.; Sang, J. Improved orbit predictions using two-line elements through error pattern mining and
transferring. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 188, 405–415. [CrossRef]
45. Lu, Z.; Hu, W. Estimation of ballistic coefficients of space debris using the ratios between different objects. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2017,
30, 1204–1216. [CrossRef]
46. Belokonov, I.V.; Timbai, I.A.; Nikolaev, P.N.; Orazbaeva, U.M. Analysis of SamSat-218D nanosatelite motion acording to trajectory
measurements, Vestnik of Samara University. Aerosp. Mech. Eng. 2019, 18, 18–28. [CrossRef]
47. Belokonov, I.V.; Timbai, I.A.; Nikolaev, P.N. Reconstruction of motion relative to the center of mass of a low-altitude nanosatellite
from trajectory measurements. In Proceedings of the IAC 2021 Congress Proceedings, 72nd International Astronautical Congress
(IAC), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 25–29 October 2021. IAC-21-B4.3.8.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 378 20 of 20

48. Hoots, F.R.; Roehrich, R.L. Models for Propagation of NORAD Element Sets. Spacetrack Report NO. 3. 1980. Available online:
http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/documentation/spacetrk.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2022).
49. Press, W.H. Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
50. Wahba, G. Spline Models for Observational Data. In CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics; University City
Science Center: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1990. [CrossRef]
51. Belokonov, I.V.; Kramlikh, A.V.; Timbai, I.A. Low-orbital transformable nanosatellite: Research of the dynamics and possibilities
of navigational and communication problems solving for passive aerodynamic stabilization. J. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. 2015, 153,
383–397, IAA-AAS-DyCoSS2-14-04-10.
52. Barinova, E.V.; Belokonov, I.V.; Timbai, I.A. Preventing Resonant Motion Modes for Low-Altitude CubeSat Nanosatellites.
Gyroscopy Navig. 2022, 12, 350–362. [CrossRef]
53. Kirillin, A.; Belokonov, I.; Timbai, I.; Kramlikh, A.; Melnik, M.; Ustiugov, E.; Egorov, A.; Shafran, S. SSAU nanosatellite project for
the navigation and control technologies demonstration. J. Procedia Eng. 2015, 104, 97–106. [CrossRef]
54. Abrashkin, V.I.; Voronov, K.E.; Dorofeev, A.S.; Piyakov, A.V.; Puzin, Y.Y.; Sazonov, V.V.; Semkin, N.D.; Filippov, A.S.; Chebukov,
S.Y. Detection of the Rotational Motion of the AIST-2D Small Spacecraft by Magnetic Measurements. Cosmic Res. 2019, 57, 48–60.
[CrossRef]
55. Sadovnichii, V.A.; Panasyuk, M.I.; Amelyushkin, A.M.; Bogomolov, V.V.; Benghin, V.V.; Garipov, G.K.; Kalegaev, V.V.; Klimov,
P.A.; Khrenov, B.A.; Petrov, V.L. “Lomonosov” Satellite—Space Observatory to Study Extreme Phenomena in Space. Space Sci.
Rev. 2017, 212, 1705–1738. [CrossRef]
56. Fifth Anniversary of the First Launch from Vostochny. 2021. Available online: http://en.roscosmos.ru/22086/ (accessed on
26 January 2022).
57. Soyuz 2-1v Launch Vehicle. Available online: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/soyuz-2-1v (accessed on 26 January 2022).
58. Progress Rocket Space Centre. Available online: https://www.samspace.ru (accessed on 26 January 2022).
59. Innoter Geospatial Agency. AIST-2D. Available online: https://innoter.com/en/satellites/aist-2d/ (accessed on 26 January 2022).
60. Wua, S.; Chen, W.; Cao, C.; Zhang, C.; Mu, Z. A multiple-CubeSat constellation for integrated earth observation and marine/air
traffic monitoring. Adv. Space Res. 2021, 67, 3712–3724. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.