# A Performance Evaluation Approach for Satellite Attitude Control System in Tracking Mode
## 5 Evaluation Experiment and Analysis
### Evaluation Results for Sun-Pointing Mode  
According to the indicator solution method described in the previous section, the values of the indicators for the sun-pointing mode are computed. After normalizing the efficiency indicators, a comprehensive efficiency assessment is conducted using an improved principal component-based grey-target model. The results of the comprehensive evaluation are sorted based on the size of the efficiency value, and the smaller the distance to the bull's-eye, the better the efficiency. The control process indicator values for the top 10 positions in the sun-pointing mode are presented in Table 3, while the indicator values for the bottom 10 positions are shown in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Process**} & **Pointing** & **Relative** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Stability**} & **Response** & **Angular** & **Energy** & **Off-Target** \\  & **Accuracy** & **Accuracy** & & **Time** & **Velocity** & **Consumption** & **Distance** \\ \hline S14 & 0.6427 & 0.9669 & 0.6936 & 0.6000 & 0.7892 & 1.0000 & 0.2502 \\ S13 & 0.8078 & 0.8404 & 0.9622 & 0.5143 & 0.7315 & 0.8212 & 0.2640 \\ S35 & 0.6052 & 0.7269 & 0.9534 & 0.6000 & 0.7653 & 0.8798 & 0.2730 \\ S26 & 0.7855 & 0.9822 & 0.7028 & 0.4571 & 1.0000 & 0.7725 & 0.2880 \\ S37 & 0.8942 & 0.9881 & 0.5508 & 0.6571 & 0.9712 & 0.5709 & 0.3018 \\ S17 & 0.7047 & 0.9213 & 0.8955 & 0.5143 & 0.7542 & 0.6443 & 0.3048 \\ S19 & 0.8667 & 0.9250 & 1.0000 & 0.3143 & 0.6799 & 0.9409 & 0.3214 \\ S27 & 0.9206 & 0.9145 & 0.8621 & 0.3429 & 0.6720 & 0.7978 & 0.3269 \\ S39 & 0.7822 & 0.9677 & 0.8772 & 0.8571 & 0.1213 & 0.8600 & 0.3354 \\ S13 & 0.7263 & 0.9760 & 0.6363 & 0.6286 & 0.9749 & 0.4826 & 0.3355 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Top 10 evaluation results for sun-pointing mode. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Process**} & **Pointing** & **Relative** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Stability**} & **Response** & **Angular** & **Energy** & **Off-Target** \\  & **Accuracy** & **Accuracy** & & **Time** & **Velocity** & **Consumption** & **Distance** \\ \hline S24 & 0.8474 & 0.0808 & 0.8004 & 0.5143 & 0.7058 & 0.0000 & 0.6864 \\ S23 & 0.7855 & 0.1962 & 0.8114 & 0.4000 & 0.6649 & 0.0000 & 0.6758 \\ S25 & 0.7313 & 0.0393 & 0.0000 & 0.5429 & 0.7161 & 0.8880 & 0.6223 \\ S21 & 0.7364 & 0.9800 & 0.7925 & 0.8000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.6115 \\ S33 & 0.5773 & 0.8597 & 0.7982 & 0.0000 & 0.5759 & 0.3190 & 0.5854 \\ S30 & 0.0000 & 0.7595 & 0.7795 & 0.3714 & 0.6589 & 0.2882 & 0.5838 \\ S43 & 0.7760 & 0.0000 & 0.7962 & 0.4571 & 0.6824 & 0.5500 & 0.5821 \\ S41 & 0.8397 & 0.0100 & 0.9065 & 0.4286 & 0.6727 & 0.5828 & 0.5724 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont_. Figure 4: Performance evaluation results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Process**} & **Pointing** & **Relative** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Stability**} & **Response** & **Angular** & **Energy** & **Off-Target** \\  & **Accuracy** & **Accuracy** & & **Time** & **Velocity** & **Consumption** & **Distance** \\ \hline S10 & 0.4414 & 0.9074 & 0.1045 & 0.1429 & 0.8045 & 0.6519 & 0.5569 \\ S6 & 0.2314 & 0.8781 & 0.0000 & 0.7714 & 0.2527 & 0.7054 & 0.5498 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont_. According to Tables 3 and 4, all indicators of the S14 process perform well, and the attitude control energy consumption reaches the optimal level. The S38 control process is relatively stable, with four indicator values above 0.8, so the comprehensive evaluation results of these two control processes are the best. The S24 process is the worst in attitude control energy consumption, close to the worst in relative attitude pointing accuracy, and there is no excellent index value, so the evaluation result of this process is at the bottom. The S23 process is similar to the S24 process, but the relative attitude pointing accuracy is slightly better than S24, and the off-target distance is slightly smaller than S24.