FPQ-6 Tracking and Ranging
| Revision as of 03:01, 6 February 2007 (edit) Paul (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 06:20, 6 February 2007 (edit) Paul (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| <BR><BR> | <BR><BR> | ||
| ==Tracking techniques== | ==Tracking techniques== | ||
| - | All tracking systems go through four phases of activity for each track - pre-pass checks, acquisition of spacecraft (or satellite), tracking data output, and post-pass checks – except that for a precision radar, such as the FPQ-6, there are additional refinements. | + | All tracking systems go through four phases of activity for each track - pre-pass checks, acquisition of spacecraft (or satellite), tracking data output, and post-pass checks – except that for a precision radar, such as the FPQ-6, there are additional refinements. [1] |
| ===Pre-pass checks=== | ===Pre-pass checks=== | ||
| - | In addition to the usual slew tests and collimation tower tests of reflector and transponder tests, Q6 recorded the local temperature, humidity and pressure for entry into the RCA computer to compensate for the atmospheric effect on the speed of radio waves and the calculation of range. | + | In addition to the usual slew tests and collimation tower tests of reflector and transponder tests, Q6 recorded the local humidity and pressure entered into the RCA computer to compensate for the refraction coefficient which depends on the atmospheric factors in a complex manner and affects the calculation of range. [2] |
| ===Acquisition=== | ===Acquisition=== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| After LOS a final collimation tower check was made and the local atmospheric data was again recorded to enable possible further adjustments to the tracking data recorded and to the orbital parameters. | After LOS a final collimation tower check was made and the local atmospheric data was again recorded to enable possible further adjustments to the tracking data recorded and to the orbital parameters. | ||
| - | Following one early Apollo mission, the network queried a range tracking difference of *** metres between the Carnarvon FPQ-6 radar and the Unified S-Band ranging systems. Local static and dynamic testing revealed insignificant differences. Finally the station suggested that the network had applied the Q6 atmospheric adjustment at the network end as well as its automatic inclusion at Carnarvon. The station heard no more about the ‘error’. Apparently earlier Mercury and Gemini tracking procedures had not been updated. | + | Following one the Apollo-8 mission, the NASA queried a range tracking difference of 60 metres between the Carnarvon FPQ-6 and the Unified S-Band ranging systems at an elevation of about 13 degrees. [2] Local static tower tests and dynamic testing with the STADAN simulation aircraft revealed no significant difference. [3] Finally Carnarvon engineers suggested that NASA had applied the Q6 refraction coefficient at their end in addition to its automatic inclusion at Carnarvon. The station heard no more about the ‘error’. |
| [[#top]] | [[#top]] | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| ==Ranging== | ==Ranging== | ||
| - | + | [[The Science of Tracking#Range:_Phase-delay_measurement|(read more 'Range' detail)]] | |
| ==Angles== | ==Angles== | ||
| - | + | The Science of Tracking#Angle:_Relative-phase_measurement|(read more 'Angle' detail)]] | |
| ==Side-lobe detection== | ==Side-lobe detection== | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| [[#top]] | [[#top]] | ||
| - | ==References== | + | ==References:== |
| <SMALL> | <SMALL> | ||
| + | [1] <BR> | ||
| + | [2] Heald. B., personal communication, 15 October 2005<BR> | ||
| + | [3] NAA: PP583/1 C358A, Contractor Performance Report, June 1969<BR> | ||
| + | [4] <BR> | ||
Revision as of 06:20, 6 February 2007
- Antenna structure
- Tracking and Ranging
- Brief system details
- RCA Computer
- Mission Activity
- Research activity
- BDA, CRO & RCA: Q6 partners
Back to Station Equipment
Contents |
Tracking techniques
All tracking systems go through four phases of activity for each track - pre-pass checks, acquisition of spacecraft (or satellite), tracking data output, and post-pass checks – except that for a precision radar, such as the FPQ-6, there are additional refinements. [1]
Pre-pass checks
In addition to the usual slew tests and collimation tower tests of reflector and transponder tests, Q6 recorded the local humidity and pressure entered into the RCA computer to compensate for the refraction coefficient which depends on the atmospheric factors in a complex manner and affects the calculation of range. [2]
Acquisition
Usually, the Q6 antenna was controlled by the data processor from pre-programmed orbital parameters which provided antenna pointing angles and a ranging distance. If no clear radar signal was received, the console technician would modify the pre-programmed tracking path by choosing an antenna angle scan (usually an 8 mil diameter circle) and a range search (usually pm 10,000 yards either side of the predicted range) or through the station ‘acquisition bus’ by slaving to a station antenna which had already locked onto the spacecraft.
Part of the skill of acquisition required the patience of the technician to allow the spacecraft to move ‘through’ the antenna side-lobe into the main signal lobe before locking onto the spacecraft.
Tracking data output
Once the spacecraft had been acquired, the RCA computer proceeded to update its orbital parameters to provide more accurate orbital data to down range radars and to the data processor should a premature loss of signal (LOS) occur and re-acquisition became necessary. Meanwhile high speed tracking data (10 sets/sec) was recorded on magnetic data and low speed tracking data (1 set/sec) was dispatched by teletype to the tracking network.
Post-pass checks
After LOS a final collimation tower check was made and the local atmospheric data was again recorded to enable possible further adjustments to the tracking data recorded and to the orbital parameters.
Following one the Apollo-8 mission, the NASA queried a range tracking difference of 60 metres between the Carnarvon FPQ-6 and the Unified S-Band ranging systems at an elevation of about 13 degrees. [2] Local static tower tests and dynamic testing with the STADAN simulation aircraft revealed no significant difference. [3] Finally Carnarvon engineers suggested that NASA had applied the Q6 refraction coefficient at their end in addition to its automatic inclusion at Carnarvon. The station heard no more about the ‘error’.
Ranging
Angles
The Science of Tracking#Angle:_Relative-phase_measurement|(read more 'Angle' detail)]]
Side-lobe detection
Computer assistance
References:
[1]
[2] Heald. B., personal communication, 15 October 2005
[3] NAA: PP583/1 C358A, Contractor Performance Report, June 1969
[4]
