Jim Ray & Jake Griffiths NOAA/National Geodetic Survey STATUS OF IGS ORBIT MODELING & AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Earth radiation pressure (albedo) accelerations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2006 AGU Fall Meeting. 14 Dec. 2006, San Francisco – Poster #G43A-0985 Jim Ray (NOAA/NGS), Tonie van Dam (U. Luxembourg), Zuheir Altamimi (IGN), Xavier.
Advertisements

Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 19 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue | A | Cambridge MA V F.
3. Geocentre and scale Comparison of weekly and daily IGS reference frames: the first year Peter J Clarke, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Seasonal Position Variations and Regional Reference Frame Realization Jeff Freymueller Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Effect of Surface Loading on Regional Reference Frame Realization Hans-Peter Plag Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological Laboratory University.
Jim Ray & Jake Griffiths, NOAA/National Geodetic Survey Xavier Collilieux & Paul Rebischung, IGN/LAREG S UBSEASONAL GNSS P OSITIONING E RRORS Linear rate.
Jake Griffiths & Jim Ray NOAA/National Geodetic Survey Acknowledgement: Kevin Choi SUBDAILY ALIAS AND DRACONITIC ERRORS IN THE IGS ORBITS Harmonics of.
POD/Geoid Splinter Summary OSTS Meeting, Hobart 2007.
2-3 November 2009NASA Sea Level Workshop1 The Terrestrial Reference Frame and its Impact on Sea Level Change Studies GPS VLBI John Ries Center for Space.
Impact of SLR tracking on GPS Position Paper presented at the ILRS Workshop on SLR tracking of GNSS constellations September 14-19, 2009 Metsovo, Greece.
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
International Terrestrial Reference Frame - Latest Developments Horst Müller 16th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, Poznan, Poland, October
Laser Ranging Contributions to Earth Rotation Studies Richard S. Gross Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91109–8099,
The IGS contribution to ITRF2014 Paul Rebischung, Bruno Garayt, Zuheir Altamimi, Xavier Collilieux 26th IUGG General Assembly, Prague, 28 June.
Jim Ray & Jake Griffiths, NOAA/National Geodetic Survey Xavier Collilieux & Paul Rebischung, IGN/LAREG S UBSEASONAL GNSS P OSITIONING E RRORS Linear rate.
2013 AGU Fall Meeting – 9 December 2013 – San Francisco, CA – Poster #G13B-0933 Status of IGS Core Products J. Griffiths NOAA,
IGS Analysis Center Workshop, Miami Beach, June 2008 Comparison of GMF/GPT with VMF1/ECMWF and Implications for Atmospheric Loading Peter Steigenberger.
GNSS Observations of Earth Orientation Jim Ray, NOAA/NGS 1. Polar motion observability using GNSS – concepts, complications, & error sources – subdaily.
GNSS Observations of Earth Orientation Jim Ray, NOAA/NGS 1. Polar motion observability using GNSS – concepts, complications, & error sources – subdaily.
ESPACE Porto, June 2009 MODELLING OF EARTH’S RADIATION FOR GPS SATELLITE ORBITS Carlos Javier Rodriguez Solano Technische Universität München
NGS GPS ORBIT DETERMINATION Positioning America for the Future NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION National Ocean Service National Geodetic.
1/17 REFAG Symposium 6 October 2010 – Marne-la-Vallée, France Recent Results from the IGS Terrestrial Frame Combinations __________________________________________________________________________________________________.
IGS Analysis Center Workshop, 2-6 June 2008, Florida, USA GPS in the ITRF Combination D. Angermann, H. Drewes, M. Krügel, B. Meisel Deutsches Geodätisches.
The IGS contribution to ITRF2013 – Preliminary results from the IGS repro2 SINEX combinations Paul Rebischung, Bruno Garayt, Xavier Collilieux, Zuheir.
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,
Matt A. King 1, Christopher S. Watson 2 1 School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, UK 2 School of Geography.
AGU Fall meeting Quality assessment of GPS reprocessed Terrestrial Reference Frame 1 IGN/LAREG and GRGS 2 University of Luxembourg X Collilieux.
SNARF: Theory and Practice, and Implications Thomas Herring Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT
Earth Sciences Sector SLIDE 1 NAREF & CBN Velocity Solutions for a New Version of SNARF Mike Craymer Joe Henton Mike Piraszewski 8th SNARF Workshop AGU.
Wiesław Kosek 1,2, Agnieszka Wnęk 1, Maria Zbylut 1, Waldemar Popiński 3 1) Environmental Engineering and Land Surveying Department, University of Agriculture.
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 motion estimates from the IGS Analysis Center solutions P. Rebischung, X. Collilieux, Z. Altamimi IGN/LAREG & GRGS 1 EGU General Assembly, Vienna,
Geocenter Variations Derived from GRACE Data Z. Kang, B. Tapley, J. Chen, J. Ries, S. Bettadpur Joint International GSTM and SPP Symposium GFZ Potsdam,
1/16 ITRF2008-P: Some evaluation elements and impact on IGS RF products Paul Rebischung, Bruno Garayt, 16 April 2010 ITRF2008-P: SOME EVALUATION ELEMENTS.
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.
PENDING & PROPOSED MODEL CHANGES: SESSION RECOMMENDATIONS IGS core products AC modeling documentation Troposphere modeling Higher-order ionospheric corrections.
LLR Analysis – Relativistic Model and Tests of Gravitational Physics James G. Williams Dale H. Boggs Slava G. Turyshev Jet Propulsion Laboratory California.
Workshop, Miami, June 2008 IGS Contribution to ITRF Zuheir Altamimi & Xavier Collilieux IGN, France.
12/12/01Fall AGU Vertical Reference Frames for Sea Level Monitoring Thomas Herring Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences
Rotational Errors in IGS Orbit & ERP Products Jim Ray, Jake Griffiths NOAA/NGS P. Rebischung IGN/LAREG J. Kouba NRCanada W. Chen Shanghai Astronomical.
OSTST Meeting, Hobart, Australia, March 12-15, 2007 On the use of temporal gravity field models derived from GRACE for altimeter satellite orbit determination.
1/16 35th IGS Governing Board Meeting December 13, 2009 – San Francisco TRANSITION OF THE IGS REFERENCE FRAME COORDINATION FROM NRCAN TO IGN - STATUS AND.
Importance of SLR in the Determination of the ITRF Zuheir Altamimi IGN, France Geoscience Australia, Canberra, August 29, 2005 SLR Strength: its contribution.
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.
Insensitivity of GNSS to geocenter motion through the network shift approach Paul Rebischung, Zuheir Altamimi, Tim Springer AGU Fall Meeting 2013, San.
Investigations on (radial) offsets between different Swarm orbit solutions 8 September th Swarm Data Quality Workshop, IPGP, Paris Heike Peter (PosiTim),
Errors in Positioning Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
IERS Combination WG and CPP Meeting, April 27, 2005, TU of Vienna, Austria Status and Future of the IERS Combination Efforts Markus Rothacher GeoForschungsZentrum.
Interminimum Changes in Global Total Electron Content and Neutral Mass Density John Emmert, Sarah McDonald Space Science Division, Naval Research Lab Anthony.
Astronomical Institute University of Bern 1 Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland * now at PosiTim, Germany 5th International GOCE User.
IERS Combination WG and CPP Meeting, April 27, 2005, TU of Vienna, Austria Strategies for Weekly Routine Generation of Combined IERS Products Markus Rothacher.
Aurore Sibois and Shailen Desai
Thomas Herring, IERS ACC, MIT
Consistency of Crustal Loading Signals Derived from Models & GPS: Inferences for GPS Positioning Errors Quantify error budget for weekly dNEU GPS positions.
Force models for GPS Orbit modeling
Systematic errors in IGS terrestrial frame products Paul Rebischung, Zuheir Altamimi (with contributions from Ralf Schmid, Jim Ray & Wei Chen)
Reference Frame Representations: The ITRF from the user perspective
How to constrain the origin, orientation and scale
Analysis Center + Reference Frame Working Group
Reference Frame Working Group
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.
WHY DOES THE IGS CARE ABOUT EOPs?
Agenda Background and Motivation
Reference Frame Working Group Report
CNES-CLS Dynamical modelling of GPS orbits
Combination of reprocessed orbit, clock and ERP products
Presentation transcript:

Jim Ray & Jake Griffiths NOAA/National Geodetic Survey STATUS OF IGS ORBIT MODELING & AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Earth radiation pressure (albedo) accelerations – see posters by C. Rodriguez Solano et al. (this afternoon) Spurious rotations & translations in AC solutions – compare Rapid & Finals daily orbits – check indirect AC orbit effects on polar motion, LOD, geocenter – study discontinuities between daily orbits Inconsistent AC yaw-attitude models – mostly affects clock estimates during eclipse season EGU 2011, Session G2.4, Vienna, 8 April 2011

SLR ranging is only direct, independent method –but just 2 old GPS Block IIA SVs with retro-reflectors (PRNs 05 & 06) –PRN05 was decommissioned in 2009 –results suggest neglect of albedo shifts orbit origin few cm away from sun –not considered here → see posters by C. Rodriguez Solano et al. Or, can check indirect effects on polar motion, LOD, & geocenter estimates –net constellation rotations about RX & RY should ideally match polar motion offsets in PMy & PMx –LOD changes are indistinguishable from –dRZ/dt, net rate of satellite Right Ascensions (axial rotation rate) –compare LOD to independent multi-technique UT1+LOD combinations –compare geocenter motion to SLR & load models Can also study discontinuities between daily orbits at ~24:00 –samples 1 point in orbit per day –aliases any subdaily harmonic orbit errors into longer-period features (except S1 & S2) Approaches to Study Orbit Errors 02

Compare 3 years of daily orbits: 1 Jan 2008 to 31 Dec 2010 Net daily constellation rotations are a leading orbit error –must come mostly from modeling of satellite dynamics –note non-zero RY mean bias Implies short-period orbit precision > 8.2/√2 ≈ 5.8 mm –this is 1D lower-limit estimate => 3D precision is >10.1 mm –common-mode errors (e.g., subdaily EOP tide model) not visible here Other common-mode IGR/IGS errors also not visible here –long-period (> 1 d) errors –e.g., due to Reference Frame or analytical form of empirical orbit model IGS Rapid vs Final Orbit Differences (mm) DXDYDZRXRYRZSCLRMSWRMS MEDI TOTAL ERROR mean std dev (1D) 03

Spectra of (Rapid-Final) Orbit Rotation Differences Rotation differences nearly featureless –except for background of flicker noise down to sub-weekly periods (1096 d from 1 Jan – 31 Dec. 2010) greater RZ power in weekly band probably related to weekly UT1 updates in AC Finals 04

A constant rotational shift of TRF, e.g., should offset orbit frame & polar motion (PM) equally –expect: orbit RX ≈ ΔPMy & orbit RY ≈ ΔPMx But, a net diurnal sinusoidal wobble of orbit frame will alias entirely into a PM bias –does not equal any net rotational offset of orbit frame Likewise, prograde diurnal PM errors can alias into empirical once-per-rev (12-hr) orbit parameters –e.g., due to errors in ~24-hr terms of subdaily EOP tide model –net impact on orbit frame depends on geometry of orbit planes & SRP model terms So, check of orbit frame vs PM rotational consistency can provide insights into AC analysis weaknesses –note, though, that most ACs apply some over-constraints on orbit and/or PM variations (only ESA & NGS claim none; CODE has strongest) AC Orbit & Polar Motion Consistency

Rotational Self-Consistency of IGS Final Orbits/PM Orbit rotations more variable than PM residuals for all ACs COD GFZ ESA JPL MIT NGS

Most ACs use CODE Extended Orbit Model in some form, with empirical SRP parameters adjusted deterministically –COD: D,Y,B scales + 1/rev in B + 12-hr velocity brks w/ constraints –ESA: D,Y,B scales + 1/rev in B + along-track offset & 1/rev –GFZ: D,Y,B scales + 1/rev in B + noon velocity brks –GRG: D,Y scales + 1/rev in D,B + velocity brks in eclipse –MIT: D,Y,B scales + 1/rev in D,Y,B w/ constraints –NGS: D,Y,B scales + 1/rev in B + noon velocity brks –SIO: D,Y,B scales + 1/rev in D,Y,B w/ constraints (frames oriented toward the Sun) Except 2 ACs that use frame oriented toward the Earth with stochastic SRP estimation –EMR:X,Y,Z scales + stochastic X,Y,Z –JPL: X,Y,Z scales + stochastic X,Y,Z Geocenter & LOD estimates (among others) known to be sensitive to solar radiation pressure modeling –especially Y & Z components of geocenter AC Orbit Modeling Differences 05

IGS Final LOD Residuals (AC – JPL KEOF) Strong harmonic modulations visible for all ACs –but amplitudes vary among ACs 06

Spectra of AC LOD Differences Aliased subdaily UT1 errors, semi-annual, & 6 th GPS draconitic aliased sub- daily UT1 tide errors 6 th GPS draconitic 07

IGS combination “calibrates” AC LOD biases by comparison with IERS Bulletin A over a 21-d sliding window –process seems effective at mitigating most LOD flicker & long-period noise Spectrum of IGS Rapid Combined LOD Differences (1024 d from 2 May 2008 – 19 Feb. 2010)

Amplitude spectra from reprocessed years 1994/ –level of draconitics highly variable among ACs (but over long spans) Draconitics in AC Reprocessed LOD Differences (from P. Rebischung, 2011) draconitics ~14-d band

IGS & JPL results from reprocessing + operations since 2007 –out of phase with each other since ~ Compare Geocenter Z Variations completely out of phase afterwards 08

ILRS results (from ITRF2008) mostly out of phase with IGS/JPL before ~ IGS/JPL both show persistent bias Compare Geocenter Z Variations started becoming more phase coherent 09

JPL Z geocenter more in phase with load model since ~2008 –recent IGS results are completely out of phase –may suggest recent JPL orbit modeling is better but amps are large Compare Geocenter Z Variations JPL more in phase with load model than is IGS 10

IGS & JPL agreement generally similar for X geocenter –but IGS better at some times (e.g., & ) –long-term GNSS X origin less stable than ILRS or load model Compare Geocenter X Variations

IGS results strongly skewed before ~1998 for Y geocenter –both IGS & JPL poorly centered over most of span –probably mostly related to solar radiation pressure modeling Compare Geocenter Y Variations

Compute Orbit Discontinuities Fit orbits for each day with BERNE (6+9) orbit model –fit 96 SP3 orbit positions for each SV as pseudo-observations for Day A –parameterize fit as plus 3 SRPs per SV component –propagate fit forward to 23:52:30 for Day A –repeat for Day B & propagate backwards to 23:52:30 of day before Compute A,C,R orbit differences at 23:52:30 Use 2049 d from 23 May 2005 thru 31 Dec 2010 –spectra for all SVs stacked for each AC; data gaps linearly interpolated –sliding boxcar filter used to smooth across each 3 adjacent frequencies –previous procedures have been refined for improved results Power of fit/extrapolation error “calibrated” using similar test for observed values at 23:45 11

Strong peaks near same subdaily EOP alias lines as LOD spectra –but frequencies do not exactly match aliases for 24-hr sampling –also effects differ for each A,C,R component –3 rd GPS harmonic important in cross-track & radial components Spectra of IGS Orbit A,C,R Discontinuities possible aliased sub-daily EOP tide errors ? 3 rd GPS draconitic 12

Compare NGS orbits using IERS & test subdaily EOP model –for test EOP model, change tidal admittances by ~20% –sample daily differences at 23:45 & convert to A,C,R frame –subdaily periodic differences will alias to longer periods in spectra Simulate Orbit Errors from Subdaily EOP Model SVN34/PRN04 sample 23:45 13

Coupling of subdaily EOP errors into orbit parameters is complex –normal ~7, ~9, ~14, & ~29 d alias lines are split & frequency shifted –apparent draconitic features created, especially 3 rd harmonic –large annual (K1 alias ?) signal but little semi-annual power Spectra of Simulated A,C,R Subdaily EOP Errors sub-daily EOP tide errors alias differently for orbits 3 rd + other GPS draconitics created 14

Diverse AC models for yaw-attitude variations during eclipse cause large clock discrepancies for older Block IIA GPS satellites –some ACs get rejected from clock combination Must adopt a common yaw model for ACs & PPP users Impact of AC Yaw-Attitude Models on GPS Clocks PRN03/SVN33 (IIA – 1996) (ESA is clock reference) 3 cm 15

Rotational variations are a leading IGS orbit error –background spectrum shows flicker noise –probably is main source of flicker noise in station position time series Larger variations in AC orbit frame rotations than polar motion –cause is unclear but must be related to AC analysis methods –could be affected by a priori AC constraints –LODs show clear aliasing of subdaily EOP errors + 6 th draconitic + semi- annual Orbit discontinuities at day-boundaries reveal error details –subdaily EOP tide errors alias very strongly into orbit parameters, especially in cross-track –but alias frequencies shifted & split compared to 1d sampling –annual or K1 tide alias errors important in along-track –3 rd & other draconitic harmonics created by subdaily EOP errors Adoption of common model for yaw variations is mandatory –otherwise combined SV clocks during eclipse are degraded Summary & Conclusions 16