Frame center acceleration method improved trajectory consistency

What the study found: The frame center acceleration method produced more consistent trajectories than the indirect method when ephemeris data were used, but the trajectories may have been less accurate. The comparison focused on spacecraft trajectory agreement between reference frames in the Earth–Moon system.

Why the authors say this matters: The authors frame the work as a comparison of two ways to handle perturbing accelerations using ephemeris data, and they identify differences in how the methods treat unmodeled forces. The study suggests these differences affect consistency between trajectories generated by the two methods.

What the researchers tested: The researchers compared the consistency of trajectories generated with the indirect method and the frame center acceleration method. They used ephemeris data to retrieve positions of solar system bodies and examined trajectories across a range of Earth–Moon system cases.

What worked and what didn't: The results showed that the frame center acceleration method was more consistent than the indirect method. However, the abstract says it was potentially less accurate, and the discrepancies were attributed to unmodeled forces included in the ephemeris but not in the spacecraft force model.

What to keep in mind: The abstract does not provide quantitative results, and it does not describe additional limitations beyond the issue of unmodeled forces. The findings are limited to the comparison described here and to the Earth–Moon system cases studied.

Key points

• The frame center acceleration method produced more consistent trajectories than the indirect method.
• The abstract says the frame center acceleration method may be less accurate.
• The comparison used ephemeris data to model positions of solar system bodies.
• The study examined trajectories in the Earth–Moon system.
• Differences were linked to unmodeled forces handled differently by the two methods.