Investigations on (radial) offsets between different Swarm orbit solutions 8 September 2015 5th Swarm Data Quality Workshop, IPGP, Paris Heike Peter (PosiTim),

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Where do precise orbits and clocks come from? Kristine M. Larson ASEN 6090 Spring 2010.

Advertisements

Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 19 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;

ILRS Workshop, 2008, A 33 Year Time History of the J2 Changes from SLR Minkang Cheng and Byron D. Tapley Center for Space Research.

Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue | A | Cambridge MA V F.

04/22/02EGS G STABILITY OF GLOBAL GEODETIC RESULTS Prof. Thomas Herring Room ;

POD/Geoid splinter March 14, 2007 J.P. Berthias Ocean Topography Science Team Meeting - Hobart, Australia – March 2007.

POD/Geoid Splinter Summary OSTS Meeting, Hobart 2007.

Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.

Prepared by: MORE Team MORE Relativity Meeting February 16-17, 2009 Rome Simulation of the solar conjunction experiment with BepiColombo.

The 15th Workshop on JAXA Astrodynamics and Flight Mechanics, 2005

© GMV, 2008 Property of GMV Aerospace and Defence S.A.; all rights reserved USE OF SLR OBSERVATIONS TO IMPROVE GALILEO GIOVE-B ORBIT AND CLOCK DETERMINATION.

ESOC Navigation Support Office ILRS Workshop 2008 Poznan, Poland ESOC IGS, IDS, ILRS (Re-) processing T. Springer, M. Otten, I. Romero, J. Dow.

Assessment of SLR observation performance using LAGEOS data Gang ZHAO, You ZHAO, Mingguo Sun, Huanhuan YU Changchun Observatory, NAOC, CAS, China 16 th.

Real-Time Orbit And Clock Estimation Using PANDA Software Shi C, Lou YD, Zhao QL, Liu JN GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, China IGS Analysis Center.

IGS Analysis Center Workshop, Miami Beach, 2-6 June 2008 M. Fritsche, R. Dietrich, A. Rülke Institut für Planetare Geodäsie (IPG), Technische Universität.

University of Colorado Boulder ASEN 5070: Statistical Orbit Determination I Fall 2014 Professor Brandon A. Jones Lecture 37: SNC Example and Solution Characterization.

Space-Based Satellite Antenna Maps; Impact of Different Satellite Antenna Maps on LEO & Terrestrial Results Bruce Haines, Yoaz Bar-Sever, Willy Bertiger,

ESPACE Porto, June 2009 MODELLING OF EARTH’S RADIATION FOR GPS SATELLITE ORBITS Carlos Javier Rodriguez Solano Technische Universität München

SVY 207: Lecture 4 GPS Description and Signal Structure

1 Swarm ACC data: physical signal and temperature dependence Swarm 4th DATA QUALITY WORKSHOP, GFZ Potsdam, 2–5 December 2014 Aleš Bezděk Josef Sebera Jaroslav.

Part VI Precise Point Positioning Supported by Local Ionospheric Modeling GS894G.

ESA Living Planet Symposium, Bergen, T. Gruber, C. Ackermann, T. Fecher, M. Heinze Institut für Astronomische und Physikalische Geodäsie (IAPG)

ESOC Navigation Support Office IGS Workshop 2008 Miami ESOC New Developments and Innovations T.A. Springer, F. Dilssner, E. Schoenemann, M. Otten, I. Romero,

Titelmaster Geometrical and Kinematical Precise Orbit Determination of GOCE Akbar Shabanloui Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation, University of Bonn.

Compatibility of Receiver Types for GLONASS Widelane Ambiguity Resolution Simon Banville, Paul Collins and François Lahaye Geodetic Survey Division, Natural.

The IGS contribution to ITRF2013 – Preliminary results from the IGS repro2 SINEX combinations Paul Rebischung, Bruno Garayt, Xavier Collilieux, Zuheir.

Modeling Earth radiation pressure Carlos Rodriguez-Solano

IGS Workshop, June 02, Validation of GNSS Satellite Orbits C. Flohrer, G. Beutler, R. Dach, W. Gurtner, U. Hugentobler 1, S. Schaer, T. Springer.

EUREF Symposium, Paris, 6-8 June 2012 Impact of Individual GNSS Antenna Calibration Used in the EPN on Positioning Q. Baire, E. Pottiaux, C. Bruyninx,

GOCE Workshop at ESA LP Symposium, Bergen, 29./30.June, 2010 Precise Science Orbits for the GOCE Satellite – Aiming at the cm-level H. Bock 1, A. Jäggi.

Case study for the IGS ultra-rapid orbit requirements Jan Douša Miami Beach, June 2-6, 2008.

01/0000 HEO and Daylight Ranging “Reality and Wishes” Ramesh Govind ILRS Fall Workshop, 4 th October 2005.

SNARF: Theory and Practice, and Implications Thomas Herring Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT

Rapid and Precise Orbit Determination for the GOCE Satellite P. Visser, J. van den IJssel, T. van Helleputte, H. Bock, A. Jäggi, U. Meyer, G. Beutler,

ESOC Navigation Support Office IGS Workshop 2008 Miami ESOC IGS Reprocessing T.A. Springer, F. Dilssner, E. Schoenemann, I. Romero, J. Tegedor, F. Pereira,

Geocenter Variations Derived from GRACE Data Z. Kang, B. Tapley, J. Chen, J. Ries, S. Bettadpur Joint International GSTM and SPP Symposium GFZ Potsdam,

1 SVY 207: Lecture 12 GPS Error Sources: Part 2 –Satellite: ephemeris, clock, S/A, and A/S –Propagation: ionosphere, troposphere, multipath –Receiver:antenna,

Do Annual Geopotential Variations Affect IGS Products ? J. Ray NOAA/NGS with major help from S. Bettadpur, J. Ries U. Texas/CSR T.-S. Bae Sejong U. X.

Hobart Australia March 2007Willy Bertiger Ocean Surface Topography Science Team Meeting GPS-Based Precise Orbit Determination: Jason-1 Status Willy Bertiger,

AGU Fall MeetingDec 11-15, 2006San Francisco, CA Estimates of the precision of GPS radio occultations from the FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC mission Bill Schreiner,

EUM/OPS/VWG/11 Issue /06/2011 Yoke Yoon Yago Andres Christian Marquardt COSMIC GPS Data Processing Slide: 1.

LLR Analysis – Relativistic Model and Tests of Gravitational Physics James G. Williams Dale H. Boggs Slava G. Turyshev Jet Propulsion Laboratory California.

A proposal for a consistent model of air pressure loading as part of the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS) Conventions Plag, H.-P. (1),

On the Way to Full PPP Potential Pierre Héroux Geodetic Survey Division, Natural Resources Canada.

12/12/01Fall AGU Vertical Reference Frames for Sea Level Monitoring Thomas Herring Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences

IGARSS 2011, Vancuver, Canada July 28, of 14 Chalmers University of Technology Monitoring Long Term Variability in the Atmospheric Water Vapor Content.

NAPEOS: The ESA/ESOC Tool for Space Geodesy

Jason-1 POD reprocessing at CNES Current status and further developments L. Cerri, S. Houry, P. Perrachon, F. Mercier. J.P. Berthias with entries from.

Determination of the SLR station coordinates and velocities on the basis of laser observations of low satellites Paweł Lejba, Stanisław Schillak Space.

Insensitivity of GNSS to geocenter motion through the network shift approach Paul Rebischung, Zuheir Altamimi, Tim Springer AGU Fall Meeting 2013, San.

Astronomical Institute University of Bern Astronomical Institute, University of Bern Swarm Gravity Field Results with the CMA Adrian Jäggi, Daniel Arnold,

Formosat-3/COSMIC WorkshopNov 28 - Dec 1, 2006Taipei, Taiwan Estimates of the precision of LEO orbit determination and GPS radio occultations from the.

AXK/JPL SBAS Training at Stanford University, October 27-30, 2003 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems Brazilian Ionosphere Group Training at Stanford.

1 Validation of Swarm ACC preliminary dataset Swarm 5th Data Quality Workshop, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France, 7 – 10 September 2015 Aleš.

Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.

Precise Orbit Determination of the GOCE re-entry phase Francesco Gini, Michiel Otten, Tim Springer, Werner Enderle, Stijn Lemmens, and Tim Flohrer.

Astronomical Institute University of Bern 1 Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland * now at PosiTim, Germany 5th International GOCE User.

ESA UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Christian Siemes Swarm Data Quality Workshop , Potsdam, Germany Swarm ACC and GPSR summary.

SC4MGV – ESA Contract No /13/NL/MV 5th International GOCE User Workshop November 2014, Paris, France ESA SC4MGV Search strategy for.

Summary of Session 2M Swarm 5th Data Quality Workshop

Thomas Herring, IERS ACC, MIT

ACC/GPSR Splinter Summary

CNES/CLS AC (GRG), IDS CC

ACC and GPS summary Christian Siemes, QWG and Cal/Val team Copenhagen, Denmark 18/06/2014.

Introduction to geodesy & accelerometry with Swarm

Presentation of Public ESA Multi-GNSS Products

ESOC IGS Reprocessing T. Springer, F. Dilssner, E. Schoenemann,

X SERBIAN-BULGARIAN ASTRONOMICAL CONFERENCE 30 MAY - 3 JUNE, 2016, BELGRADE, SERBIA EARTH ORIENTATION PARAMETERS AND GRAVITY VARIATIONS DETERMINED FROM.

Agenda Background and Motivation

CNES-CLS Dynamical modelling of GPS orbits

Presentation transcript:

Investigations on (radial) offsets between different Swarm orbit solutions 8 September th Swarm Data Quality Workshop, IPGP, Paris Heike Peter (PosiTim), Adrian Jäggi, Daniel Arnold (both AIUB), Jose van den IJssel (TUD)

2 Contents  Introduction and motivation  Lessons learned from Sentinel-1A  PosiTim orbit solutions for Swarm  Comparison to TUD and AIUB  SLR validation  Analysis of sytematic offsets  Antenna offset estimation for Swarm  Preliminary results  Summary

3 Introduction and motivation AIUB - TUD Mean rad mm alo 0.0 mm cro 11.8 mm Mean rad-14.9 mm alo 8.3 mm cro 2.5 mm Mean rad-14.2 mm alo 2.0 mm cro 10.8 mm A B C Swarm orbits from TUD and AIUB show systematic differences Radial direction is constant Cross-track direction is variable AIUB and TUD use different software packages With respect to the non-gravitational force modelling the orbit parametrization is either pure empirical (AIUB) or partly based on dynamical force models (TUD) The Napeos software package is offering a third orbit parametrization, which is mainly based on dynamical force models. Napeos is also offering the possibility to estimate antenna offsets directly.

4 Lessons learned from Sentinel-1A Comparisons of orbit solutions from different insitutions (e.g., AIUB, TUD and GMV) revealed a radial offset of about 3 cm between different solutions for Sentinel-1A. Due to the purely empirical parametrization in the Bernese GNSS Software (AIUB), the resulting orbits follow the geometry. Due to the dynamical parametrization in Napeos (GMV), the resulting orbits follow the dynamics (mainly in radial); the discrepancy with the given geometry is „moved“ into the PCVs. => Discrepancy in the geometry of the satellite (CoM, antenna offset, PCOs ?)

5 Lessons learned from Sentinel-1A Comparisons of orbit solutions from different insitutions (e.g., AIUB, TUD and GMV) revealed a radial offset of about 3 cm between different solutions for Sentinel-1A. Due to the purely empirical parametrization in the Bernese GNSS Software (AIUB), the resulting orbits follow the geometry. Due to the dynamical parametrization in Napeos (GMV), the resulting orbits follow the dynamics (mainly in radial); the discrepancy with the given geometry is „moved“ into the PCVs. => Discrepancy in the geometry of the satellite (CoM, antenna offset, PCOs ?)  Swarm: a radial offset of about 1 – 1.5cm is observed between the different orbit solutions  Is this a geometrical discrepancy as well? Offset *cos z

6 PosiTim orbit solutions for Swarm A & B & C Data: undifferenced ionosphere-free GPS code & carrier-phase observations from 16 July to 31 December 2014 final ESA GPS ephemeris and 30 sec clocks IGS08.atx PCV map for GPS and (own) estimated PCV map for Swarm attitude from star tracker data Models: Earth gravity (EIGEN6C 120x120) Ocean tides (EOT11a) Atmospheric drag (MSIS90) Solar radiation pressure (coefficient fixed to 1.0) Earth radiation (albedo and infrared, coefficients fixed to 1.0) Macro model for the Swarm satellites (many thanks to ESA, TUD and DLR for providing it) is used in a box-wing model Estimated parameters per 24-hour orbit arc: initial state receiver clock errors 25 drag coefficients 4 sets of CPR coefficients (along-track constant, sine and cosine; cross-track constant, sine and cosine) carrier-phase ambiguities No empirical accelerations in radial direction => radial leveling is fixed to the dynamic models

7 Orbit comparison to TUD and AIUB TUD Swarm A Mean RMS values (PTIM-TUD): radial / along-track / cross-track / 3D 1.47 / 2.62 / 1.93 / 3.63 cm Mean RMS values (PTIM-AIUB): radial / along-track / cross-track / 3D 2.14 / 2.83 / 1.61 / 3.95 cm AIUB Days with 3D-RMS values larger than 10.0 cm are excluded from the statistics 70 mm

8 Orbit comparison to TUD and AIUB TUD Swarm B Mean RMS values (PTIM-TUD): radial / along-track / cross-track / 3D 1.19 / 2.08 / 1.58 / 2.91 cm Mean RMS values (PTIM-AIUB): radial / along-track / cross-track / 3D 1.74 / 2.16 / 1.32 / 3.12 cm AIUB Days with 3D-RMS values larger than 10.0 cm are excluded from the statistics

9 Orbit comparison to TUD and AIUB TUD Swarm C Mean RMS values (PTIM-TUD): radial / along-track / cross-track / 3D 1.46 / 2.60 / 1.82 / 3.54 cm Mean RMS values (PTIM-AIUB): radial / along-track / cross-track / 3D 1.97 / 2.78 / 1.53 / 3.78 cm AIUB Days with 3D-RMS values larger than 10.0 cm are excluded from the statistics

10 SLR validation A Mean / RMS values (cm): A: 0.07 / 2.75 cm B C B: / 2.05 cmC: / 2.37 cm

11 Systematic orbit differences – mean daily offsets (m) TUD - PTIM AIUB - PTIM AIUB - TUD Mean rad -2.9 mm alo 3.8 mm cro11.6 mm Mean rad -2.8 mm alo 3.3 mm cro 5.2 mm Mean rad -3.9 mm alo 4.6 mm cro 9.7 mm Mean rad -8.2 mm alo -4.6 mm cro 2.1 mm Mean rad mm alo 0.0 mm cro 11.8 mm Mean rad-14.9 mm alo 8.3 mm cro 2.5 mm Mean rad-14.2 mm alo 2.0 mm cro 10.8 mm Mean rad-11.3 mm alo -1.8 mm cro -0.9 mm Mean rad-12.2 mm alo 5.1 mm cro -2.8 mm A B C

12 PCV maps from different institutions TUD PTIM AIUB A B C TUD - PTIMPTIM - AIUB Note: Time span used for the generation of the PCV maps is different in all three cases AIUB - TUD

13 Antenna offset estimation – first test The estimation of antenna offsets in Napeos is implemented for the satellite body- fixed system  antenna phase center offsets (PCOs) are given in the antenna reference frame and have to be rotated into the satellite body-fixed system  no problem in the case of Swarm, because PCOs are zero and the axes of the antenna reference system are (anti-)parallel to the satellite body-fixed system Since systematic offsets in radial and cross-track are observed, the estimation is done for the y-(cross-track) and z-(radial) direction The constant accelerations of the CPR parameters in cross-track are fully correlated with the y-offset => switch off the constant accelerations in cross-track direction PCO only solution is done, because the PCVs may induce offsets in the orbits, which has to be avoided for the antenna offset estimation

14 Antenna offset estimation Y antenna offset – delta (m) The estimation of antenna offsets in y-/cross-track direction is correlated to beta (angle of the Sun over the orbital plane). Swarm A Swarm B Swarm C

15 Antenna offset estimation Y and Z antenna offset – delta (m) The estimation of antenna offsets in y-/cross-track direction is correlated to beta (angle of the Sun over the orbital plane). Test for Swarm A: The orbit parametrization is changed => solar radiation pressure coefficient is fixed to 0.8 instead of 1.0 => the y-offset estimation gives different results (up to 5 mm) =>The estimated values for the z-offset, however, do not change significantly. => y-offset estimation is not very reliable

16 Antenna offset estimation Mean Swarm A 12.7 mm Swarm B 13.4 mm Swarm C 11.0 mm Z antenna offset – delta (m) The estimation of antenna offsets in z-/radial direction is much more stable. From July to September the values for all satellites are very close; from October onwards they diverge. The mean values are in-between the offsets observed between TUD and PTIM and between AIUB and PTIM.  First test for Swarm A with a modified PCO Up Offset = mm (original 0.0 mm)

17 New PCV map for Swarm A – PCO Up = -12.5mm PTIMPTIM Up-125PTIM – PTIM Up-125 Mean 0.07 cm RMS 2.75 cm Carrier phase RMS (mm) SLR residuals (m) Mean 0.06 cm RMS 2.75 cm PCO only solutions How would the modification of the PCO-Up value impact the other orbit solutions?

18 Summary Systematic orbit offsets are observed between solutions from different institutions. The radial offsets are stable and show little variation. The solutions from PosiTim offer additional orbits for validation. Comparison to TUD and AIUB show a 3-D RMS of 3-4 cm. SLR validation gives RMS values between 2.05 and 2.75 cm. The estimation of antenna offsets is possible in Napeos. Estimation of y-/cross-track offsets is not reliable, because it is correlated to the beta angle of the sun over the orbital plane. Estimation in z-/radial direction results in values between 11.0 and 13.4 mm. First test with a modified PCO Up-value of mm for Swarm A shows a reduced carrier phase RMS, which is an indicator for a better modelling. SLR validation shows no improvement (radial levelling is fixed in Napeos) => Further tests with other software packages are needed for validation.