slr-gnss analysis in the framework of the itrf2013 ... - nasa · gnss-slr combination: satellite...

Post on 20-Aug-2020

8 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

1) Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie, Frankfurt am Main, Germany2) Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland

3) Institut für Astronomische und Physikalische Geodäsie, TU München, Germany

SLR-GNSS analysisin the framework of theITRF2013 computation

D. Thaller1), O. Roggenbuck1), K. Sosnica2), P. Steigenberger 3), M. Mareyen1), C. Baumann 2), R. Dach2), A. Jäggi2)

Overview

▪ ITRF2013 called for pre-combined solutions (forcomparison purposes)

▪ SLR-GNSS combined solutions:− GPS / GLONASS: microwave observations− LAGEOS and Etalon: SLR observations− GPS / GLONASS: SLR observations

▪ Impact of datum definition on pre-combined solutions:− Geocenter− Scale− Earth Rotation Parameters (ERPs)

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 2

GNSS-SLR combination:Satellite co-location

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan 311.-16. Sept. 2013

1-day

1-day NEQ

GNSS-SLR combination:Satellite co-location

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan 411.-16. Sept. 2013

1-day

1-day NEQ

IGS processing at the CODE Analysis Center

ILRS processing at the BKG Analysis Center

GNSS-SLR combination:Satellite co-location

Using co-locations at GNSS satellites for connecting both techniques

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan 511.-16. Sept. 2013

1-day

1-day NEQ

GNSS tracking

Studies presented here: 2009/Jan – 2013/Oct

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 6

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140

100

200

300

400

500

600

# O

bs /

Day

GPS (2) GPS (2) + GLONASS

2 3 6 6 - 24

Strategy for datum definition

1) Use GNSS core network (~ 90 sites)− Dense network / many stations− (almost) identical network for each week− Orientation (= ERPs) should be defined well− Problems in geocenter may occur (artefacts from GNSS orbit modeling)

2) Use SLR core network (usually < 10 sites)− Sparse network− Changing network configuration from week to week− Orientation (= ERPs) may suffer− Geocenter should be unaffected by GNSS orbit modeling issues

3) Use combined GNSS+SLR core network− Benefit from GNSS (-> ERPs) and SLR (-> origin) ???− Not independent from local ties used in reference frame (ITRF2008)

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 7

Geocenter coordinates

▪ Using GNSS sites shows slightly different signal than using SLR sites

▪ Using SLR sites reproduces SLR-only solutionILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014−30

−20

−10

0

10

20

30

GC

C−Y

[mm

]

LAGEOS−Etalon: NNR+NNTSLR−GNSS: NNR+NNT GNSSSLR−GNSS: NNR+NNT SLR

Geocenter coordinates

▪ Using GNSS sites shows clearly different signal than using SLR sites: draconitic year

▪ Using SLR sites reproduces SLR-only solutionILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 9

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014−80

−60

−40

−20

0

20

40

60

80

GC

C−Z

[mm

]

LAGEOS−Etalon: NNR+NNTSLR−GNSS: NNR+NNT GNSSSLR−GNSS: NNR+NNT SLR

Geocenter coordinates

▪ Using GNSS+SLR sites for datum definition does not improve situation: GNSS is still dominating

▪ GNSS orbit modelling issues propagate into combinationILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 10

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014−80

−60

−40

−20

0

20

40

60

80

GC

C−Z

[mm

]

NNR+NNT GNSS sitesNNR+NNT SLR sitesNNR+NNT GNSS+SLR sites

Earth rotation parameters

▪ Using SLR core sites results in noisier time series than using GNSS core sites

▪ Using GNSS+SLR sites slightly better than GNSS-only

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 11

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014−800

−600

−400

−200

0

200

400

600

800

Δ X

−pol

e [μ

as]

NNR+NNT SLR sitesNNR+NNT GNSS sitesNNR+NNT GNSS+SLR sites

Summary and outlook -1-

▪ Weekly pre-combined GNSS-SLR solutions using satellite co-locations were studied

− SLR observations to GPS/GLONASS are additionally used (compared to „standard“ ITRF contributions)

▪ Geocenter coordinates are highly influenced by GNSS orbit modelling as soon as GNSS core network is included in datum definition

▪ ERPs are more stable if dense GNSS core network is included in datum definition

▪ Scale is independent of the set of core sites used (not shown here)

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan 1211.-16. Sept. 2013

Summary and outlook -2-

▪ There is no set of core sites that is optimal for all parameters of interest

▪ GNSS orbit modelling (solar radiation pressure) is still a big issue:

− Using 3-day orbits (instead of 1-day orbits) would help already

− Constraining of once-per-rev parameters reduces the impact on geocenter

▪ The increased amount of SLR tracking to GLONASS helps to strengthen the connection via satellites

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan 1311.-16. Sept. 2013

Thanks for your attention!

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan 1411.-16. Sept. 2013

This work was partly funded by the DFG Research Project (FOR1503): „Space-Time Reference Systems for Monitoring Global Change and for Precise Navigation in Space“

Earth rotation parameters

▪ Using SLR core sites results in noisier time series than using GNSS core sites

▪ Using GNSS+SLR sites slightly better than GNSS-only

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 15

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014−800

−600

−400

−200

0

200

400

600

800

Δ Y

−pol

e [μ

as]

NNR+NNT SLR sitesNNR+NNT GNSS sitesNNR+NNT GNSS+SLR sites

Geocenter coordinates

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 16

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014−30

−20

−10

0

10

20

30

GC

C−X

[mm

]

LAGEOS−Etalon: NNR+NNTSLR−GNSS: NNR+NNT GNSSSLR−GNSS: NNR+NNT SLR

Scale

ILRS Workshop 2013, Fujiyoshida, Japan11.-16. Sept. 2013 17

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014−2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Sca

le w

.r.t.

SLR

F200

8 [p

pb]

NNR+NNT GNSSNNR+NNT GNSS/SLRNNR+NNT SLR

top related