**Table 3:** The performance of the various preliminary orbit determination strategies discussed in the text.
QC	Objects	w/N.	w/o N.	D.C.	$\overline{M.S.}$
1	78 672	78 672	0	78 672	N.A.
2	52 927	52 906	14	52 888	20.0
3	18 760	18 642	66	18 543	19.8
4	7818	7684	120	7518	18.9
5	7452	6199	972	5 189	14.7
6	56 098	29 097	19 068	22 240	13.4
7	2200	62	57	9	7.2
Tot	223 927	193 262	20 297	185 059	17.3

NOTE: The columns contain: QC, the quality code as defined in Table 2; w/N, number of nominal solutions obtained with differential corrections using the LOV solutions as intermediary; w/o N, number of cases in which a LOV solution could be computed but a nominal solutions could not; D.C., number of nominal solutions obtained by the classical procedure, full differential corrections without intermediaries; $\overline{M.S.}$ , average number of multiple solutions computed per object with some least squares orbit, taking into account that the target was to compute 21 solutions per object. The average number of multiple solutions per object in the Tot. (total) row does not take into account the quality 1 orbits.

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text

	1 Introduction
	2 The line of variations
	3 Application 1: Impact monitoring
	4 Application 2: Orbit determination
	5 Application 3: Orbit identification
	6 Application 4: Qualitative analysis
	7 Conclusions
	Appendix A: Comparison of LOV definitions
	References