Arnold, Daniel

Jäggi, Adrian

Peter, H.

van den IJssel, J.

Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)

Investigation on systematic offsets between different Swarm orbit solutionsESA LP SymposiumMay 9 – 13, 2016, Prague, Czech Republic H. Peter1, D. Arnold2, A. Jäggi2, J. van den IJssel31 PosiTim UG, Germany2 Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland3 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, The NetherlandsPoster compiled by H. Peter, May 2016heike.peter@positim.comMotivation and BackgroundSummary and OutlookNew orbit solutions – PCO Up value modified from 0.00 mm => -10.00 mmInduced radial orbit offsets by PCVsMeanrad -1.42alo 0.20cro 1.08AIUB  TUDSwarmAMeanrad -1.13alo -0.18cro -0.09Meanrad -0.29alo 0.38cro 1.16AIUB  PTIM TUD  PTIMMeanrad -1.49alo 0.83cro 0.25SwarmBMeanrad -1.22alo 0.51cro -0.28Meanrad -0.28alo 0.33cro 0.52SwarmCMeanrad -1.21alo 0.00cro 1.18Meanrad -0.82alo -0.46cro 0.21Meanrad -0.39alo 0.46cro 0.97In addition to the official Swarm orbit solutions from TU Delft (TUD) the Astronomical Institute of the University of Bern (AIUB) and PosiTim (PTIM) are computing orbits for the Swarm satellites. Orbit comparisons reveal systematic mean offsets (cm) between the solutions.The focus is in particular on theradial component, becausesystematic offsets may hint toerroneous information about thesatellite geometry (e.g., position ofthe center of mass or antennareference point). Additionally, theradial offsets are very consistentbetween the three solutions andsimilar for all three satellites.The use of different software packages at TUD (GHOST), AIUB (Bernese GNSS Software) and PosiTim (NAPEOS) offers the chance to investigate the inconsistencies.The orbit models and parameterization in NAPEOS are following dynamical modelsto a large extent. Only few empirical parameters in along-track and out-of-planedirections allow for absorption of mismodelled accelerations. Mainly in radialdirection, discrepancies between models and observations are, therefore, absorbedby the observation residuals.The phase observation residuals, however, are used to estimate the antenna phasecenter variations (PCVs), which are applied in the final orbit determination process.If an erroneous information in the satellite geometry exists, this mismatch is mappedinto the PCVs (not to the full extent) generated by NAPEOS.The PCVs can easily be tested for induced radial offsets by performing a simple leastsquares adjustment:Using the vectors Δr =(E, N, U) and e =(sin α*sin z,cos α*sin z, cos z) the PCVs can be expressed with the following equation PCV = -sin α*sin z*E - cos α*sin z*N - cos z*U + ΔΦA simple least square adjustment is set up for this purpose. The parameters E, N and U and ΔΦ may then be estimated from a set of PCVs.We are mainly interested in the radial direction corresponding to the parameter U (Up direction). The following table summarizes, which radial offsets are induced by a set of PCVs when applying a priori a specific Up value for the PCOs (the original PCO Up value is 0.0 mm).E: East, N: North, U: Up, α: azimuth, z: zenith distance, ΔΦ: arbitrary phase offsetAIUB  TUD AIUB  PTIM PTIM  TUDSwarm ASwarm BSwarm Crad mean -1.8mm -0.2mm +2.0mm+2.1mm+1.2mm-3.3mm+3.0mm-2.0mm-1.0mmSwarm OriginalMean (cm) solutionsSTD (cm)NewMean (cm)solutionsSTD (cm)A 0.51 1.92 0.37 2.03TUD B -0.02 1.95 -0.01 1.97C 0.18 1.91 0.06 2.18A 1.15 2.21 0.56 2.18AIUB B 0.72 1.98 0.09 1.98C 0.72 2.12 0.13 2.11A 0.36 2.43 0.28 2.53PTIM B 0.18 1.99 0.14 1.98C 0.06  2.18 0.02 2.38New orbit solutions are computed by AIUB, PTIM and TUD applying themodified PCO Up value of -10.0 mm for all three satellites.The systematic radial offsets can significantly be reduced with the new orbitsolutions. The remaining radial offsets are within -3 …+3 mm.The SLR validation (Table on the left) of the new orbits indicates reducedmean values for all orbit solutions (marked in green), however, the standarddeviations increase in most cases.Note: The SLR validation is done without applying the azimuth-elevation dependent retro-reflector corrections.Induced radial offset of resulting PCVsPCO Upvalue (mm)Swarm A Swarm B Swarm C-12.0 1.0 2.0 2.6-10.0 -0.3 0.7 1.3-9.5 0.5 0.8 2.2PCVs based on updated PCO Up valueValues obtained after 3 iterationsValues obtained after 1 iteration only, but values are getting larger fromiteration to iteration. Therefore, -9.5mm is no option.A new PCO Up value of -10.0 mm is selected for all three satellites and new sets of PCVs are computed for Swarm-A, -B and –C.Systematic radial offsets of up to 1.5 cm arepresent between different Swarm orbit solutions.When applying modified phase center offsetvalues in the Up direction of -10.00 mm instead of0.00 mm the systematic radial offsets can besignificantly reduced below 3 mm.In terms of the mean values the SLR validationconfirms that the modified PCO value improvesthe orbits. However, the standard deviations ofthe statistics do not confirm the improvement.Further investigations on the systematic radialorbit offsets are necessary to confirm theimprovement of the orbit products based on allpossible measures (orbit comparisons, SLRvalidation).The out-of-plane offsets have to be investigatedas well. The improvement of the modelling of thenon-gravitational forces acting in out-of-planedirection are in focus for this.Updated PCVs for Swarm-A based ondata from Aug – Dec 2014 (left).Differences between original PCVs forSwarm-A and new PCVs (right).mm mmsource: https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.85143 | downloaded: 13.3.2017

Investigation on systematic offsets between different Swarm orbit solutions

http://boris.unibe.ch/85143/1/HP_ESA_LP_2016.pdf

Investigation on systematic offsets between different Swarm orbit solutions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)