ASEN 5070 Statistical Orbit Determination I Fall 2012 Professor Jeffrey S. Parker

Post on 22-Feb-2016

24 views 0 download

Tags:

description

ASEN 5070 Statistical Orbit Determination I Fall 2012 Professor Jeffrey S. Parker Professor George H. Born Lecture 21: Exam 2 Debrief and More Fun. Announcements. Homework 9 due this week. Make sure you spend time studying for the exam Homework 10 out Thursday. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

transcript

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 1

ASEN 5070Statistical Orbit Determination I

Fall 2012

Professor Jeffrey S. ParkerProfessor George H. Born

Lecture 21: Exam 2 Debrief and More Fun

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 2

Homework 9 due this week.◦ Make sure you spend time studying for the exam

Homework 10 out Thursday.◦ Give you a small reprieve to focus on HW9.

Announcements

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 3

Quiz 17 Review

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 4

Quiz 17 Review

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 5

Quiz 17 Review

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 6

Quiz 17 Review

The matrix of partials of one observation relative to the state parameters is identical to the other matrix.

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 7

Quiz 17 Review

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 8

Quiz 17 Review

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 9

Quiz 17 Review

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 10

Quiz 17 Review

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 11

Due this Thursday

HW#9

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 12

HW#9 Tip Try building x-hat from the data given online. If you can get

that to work then you’ll have a better chance of getting your own x-hat to match the solutions!

Grab the accumulated matrices HTWH and HTWY. Try computing inv(HTWH+P0bar)*HTWY

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 13

HW#9 Tip Your x-hat should match to at least 1 digit of precision in

each parameter (hopefully 3). It will not be identical!◦ Different integrator◦ Different tolerance◦ Different computer◦ Different inverter

inv(HTWH+P0bar) is very poorly conditioned (e-34 I believe)

Matlab’s “inv” function will not produce the right answer.

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 14

HW#9 Tip inv(HTWH+P0bar) is very poorly conditioned (e-34 I

believe)

R = chol( HTWH+P0bar) Inv(R) is also poorly conditioned, but only e-1.

This is far better.

If RTR = (HTWH+P0bar), what is inv( RTR )?

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 15

Overall, the class did well. Most everyone grasped the concepts.

Nobody got 100% - so don’t worry if your grade was lower than 90. (curve TBD)

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 16

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 17

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 18

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 19

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 20

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 21

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 22

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 23

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 24

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 25

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 26

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 27

Exam 2 Debrief

i.e., High Precision but low accuracy!

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 28

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 29

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 30

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 31

Exam 2 Debrief

Only guarantees a nonnegative definite!

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 32

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 33

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 34

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 35

Exam 2 Debrief

4x3

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 36

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 37

Exam 2 Debrief

[3x4]*[4x3] = [3x3] (hint: it’s always nxn)

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 38

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 39

Exam 2 Debrief

1. one observation vector includes 4 independent pieces of information. We only need 3 pieces of information.

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 40

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 41

Exam 2 Debrief

Then Phi, A, y, H-tildex-hat, P, x-bar, P-bar

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 42

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 43

Exam 2 Debrief

X* (the reference trajectory)x-bar (the a priori deviation, nominally zero)P-bar (the a priori covariance)Y_i (the observations)omega and sigma (though that’s specific to this problem and it’s okay if you didn’t include that!

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 44

Exam 2 Debrief

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 45

Quick Break

Next up: Stuff.

◦ Prediction Residual◦ Givens◦ Householder◦ Future: Process Noise, Smoothing

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

The Prediction Residual

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

The Prediction Residual

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

The Prediction Residual

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

The Prediction Residual

This would be especially important in the case of the EKF

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 50

Next: Orthogonal transformations: Givens, Householder

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 57

So how do we select Q?

Givens, Householder, many methods

Choices from here

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

Apply the rotation across the matrix, converting it into a triangular matrix

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

Consider 1 11 11 1

H

Machine precision is such that

The normal matrix is given by

2

3 33 3 2

TH H

; exact solution

our computer will drop the and23 3

3 3 2TH H

To order , hence itis singular

0TH H

Notice that a vector of Observations is not needed.Why?

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

Consequently, the Batch Processor will fail to yield a solution. Note that thisIllustrates the problem with forming HTH, i.e. numerical problems are amplified.

The Cholesky decomposition yields: 33

30 0

R

R is singular and will not yield a solution for . x̂

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

Use the Givens transformation to determine R 1st zero element (2,1) of H 0 1 1

0 1 10 0 1 1 1

C SS C

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

Use the Givens transformation to determine R 1st zero element (2,1) of H 0 1 1

0 1 10 0 1 1 1

C SS C

1 1x 2 1x

22 21 2

12

xSx x

12 21 2

12

xCx x

3 23 3

1 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 21 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Note that the magnitude of the columns of [H y] are unchanged.

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

Next zero element (3,1) 122

x 2 1x ,

3 23 3

1 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 21 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 11 2 3

S

2 2 23 6

C ,

2 6 0 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 30 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 11 3 0 2 6 0 2 3

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

Next zero element (3,2) 1 0x 223

x , 1S 0C ,

3 3 31 0 0 3 3 30 0 1 0 0 0 2 30 1 0 0 00 2 3

2 6 0 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 30 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 11 3 0 2 6 0 2 3

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

The Givens transformations yield

3 3 3

203

R

Which will yield a valid solution for ̂xIn fact

3 0 3 3 3

2 23 3 03 3

TR R

2

3 33 3 2

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Accuracy Comparison for Batch and Givens – Finite Precision Computer

Which is the exact solution result for . Hence, for this example the orthogonal transformations would yield the correct solution. However, the estimation error covariance matrix would be incorrect because our computer would drop the

TH H

2 term.

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder

Givens used rotations to null values until R became upper-triangular

Householder uses reflections to accomplish the same goal

74

Other Orthogonal Transformations

CCARColorado Center for

Astrodynamics Research

University of ColoradoBoulder 75

Homework 9 due this week.◦ Make sure you spend time studying for the exam

Homework 10 out Thursday.◦ Give you a small reprieve to focus on HW9.

The End