Skip to main content
Log in

An improved sampling rule for mapping geopotential functions of a planet from a near polar orbit

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Geodesy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the limiting factors in the determination of gravity field solutions is the spatial sampling. Especially during phases, when the satellite repeats its own track after a short time, the spatial resolution will be limited. The Nyquist rule-of-thumb for mapping geopotential functions of a planet, also referred to as the Colombo–Nyquist rule-of-thumb, provides a limit for the maximum achievable degree of a spherical harmonic development for repeat orbits. We show in this paper that this rule is too conservative, and solutions with better spatial resolutions are possible. A new rule is introduced which limits the maximum achievable order (not degree!) to be smaller than the number of revolutions if the difference between the number of revolutions and the number of nodal days is of odd parity and to be smaller than half the number of revolutions if the difference is of even parity. The dependence on the parity is reflected in the eigenvalue spectrum of the normal matrix and becomes especially important in the presence of noise. The rule is based on applying the Nyquist sampling theorem separately in North–South and East–West direction. This is only possible for satellites in highly inclined orbits like champ and grace. Tables for these two satellite missions are also provided which indicate the passed and (in case of grace) expected repeat cycles and possible degradations in the quality of the gravity field solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albertella A, Sansò F, Sneeuw N (1999) Band-limited functions on a bounded spherical domain: the Slepian problem on the sphere. J Geod 73(9):436–447. doi:10.1007/PL00003999

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender P, Wiese D, Nerem R (2008) A possible dual-GRACE mission with 90 degree and 63 degree inclination orbits. In: ESA, ESA/ESTEC (eds) 3rd International Symposium on Formation Flying, Missions and Technologies. Noordwijk, The Netherlands

  • Bezděk A, Klokočník J, Kostelecký J, Floberghagen R, Gruber C (2009) Simulation of free fall and resonances in the GOCE mission. J Geodyn 48(1):47–53. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2009.01.007

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezděk A, Klokočník J, Kostelecký J, Floberghagen R, Sebera J (2010) Some Aspects of the orbit selection for the measurement phases of GOCE. In: Proceedings of ESA Living Planet Symposium, Bergen, Norway

  • Colombo O (1984) The global mapping of gravity with two satellites, In: Netherlands Geodetic Commission, in publications on Geodesy, vol 7(3). http://www.ncg.knaw.nl/eng/publications/geodesy.html

  • Flechtner F, Dahle Ch, Neumayer K, König R, Förste Ch (2010) The release 04 CHAMP and GRACE EIGEN gravity field models. In: Flechtner F, Gruber Th, Güntner A, Mandea M, Rothacher M, Schöne T, Wickert J (eds) System earth via geodetic-geophysical space techniques. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10228-8_4

  • Han S, Jekeli C, Shum C (2004) Time-variable aliasing effects of ocean tides, atmosphere, and continental water mass on monthly mean GRACE gravity field. J Geophys Res 109(B04):403. doi:10.1029/2003JB002501

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen W, Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilk K, Flury J, Rummel R, Schwintzer P, Bosch W, Haas C, Schröter J, Stammer D, Zahel W, Miller H, Dietrich R, Huybrechts P, Schmeling H, Wolf D, Riegger J, Bardossy A, Güntner A (2005) Mass transport and mass distribution in the Earth system, 2nd edn. Geo Forschungs Zentrum Potsdam, Proposal for the German Priority Research Program

  • Jekeli C (1999) The determination of gravitational potential differences from satellite-to-satellite tracking. Celest Mech Dyn Astron 75: 85–101. doi:10.1023/A:1008313405488

  • Johannessen J, Aguirre-Martinez M (1999) Gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation mission. Tech Rep SP-1233(1), ESA—European Space Agency

  • Kim M (1997) Theory of satellite ground-track crossover. J Geod 71(12):749–767. doi:10.1007/s001900050141

    Google Scholar 

  • Klokočník J, Kostelecký J, Li H (1990) Best lumped coefficients from resonances for direct use in earth gravity field modelling. Bull Astron Inst Czechosl 41(1):17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Klokočník J, Wagner C, Kostelecký J, Bezděk A, Novák P, McAdoo D (2008) Variations in the accuracy of gravity recovery due to ground track variability: GRACE, CHAMP, and GOCE. J Geod 82(12):917–927. doi:10.1007/s00190-008-0222-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlis N, Holmes S, Kenyon S, Factor J (2008) An Earth gravitational model to degree 2160: EGM2008. In: 2008 General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union, Vienna, Austria

  • Prange L (2010) Global gravity field determination using the GPS measurements made on board the Low Earth Orbiting Satellite CHAMP, Ph.D. thesis, University of Berne

  • Schrama EJO (1989) The role of orbit errors in processing of satellite alitmeter data. Tech Rep 33, Netherlands Geodetic Commission

  • Schrama EJO (1990) Gravity field error analysis: application of GPS receivers and gradiometers on low orbiting platforms. In: Technical Memorandum 100769. NASA: Goddard Space Flight Center

  • Schrama EJO (1991) Gravity field error analysis: applications of global positioning system receivers and gradiometers on low orbiting platforms. J Geophys Res 96(B12):20041–20051. doi:10.1029/91JB01972

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneeuw N (2000) A semi-analytical approach to gravity field analysis from satellite observations. Reihe C 527:DGK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneeuw N, van Gelderen M (1997) The polar gap. In: Sansò F, Rummel R (eds) Geodetic boundary value problems in view of the one centimeter geoid, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, vol 65, Springer, Berlin, pp 559–568. doi:10.1007/BFb0011717

  • Sneeuw N, Gerlach Ch, Švehla D, Gruber Ch (2003) A first attempt at time-variable gravity field recovery from CHAMP using the energy balance approach. In: Tziavos I (ed) Gravity and Geoid: Proceedings of 3rd Meeting of the International Gravity and Geoid Commission, Thessaloniki, pp 237–242

  • Sneeuw N, Gerlach C, Földváry L, Gruber T, Peters T, Rummel R, Švehla D (2005) One year of time-variable CHAMP-only gravity field models using kinematic orbits. In: Sansò F (ed) A window on the future of geodesy, International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 128, Springer, Berlin, pp 288–293. doi:10.1007/3-540-27432-4_49

  • Tapley B, Bettadpur S, Ries J, Thompson P, Watkins M (2004) GRACE measurements of mass variability in the Earth system. Science 305:503–505. doi:10.1126/science.1099192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser PNAM, Sneeuw N, Reubelt T, Losch M, van Dam T (2010) Space-borne gravimetric satellite constellations and ocean tides: aliasing effects. Geophys J Int 181(2):789–805. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04557.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser PNAM, Schrama EJO, Sneeuw N, Weigelt M (2012) Dependency of resolvable gravitational spatial resolution on space-borne observation techniques. In: Kenyon S, Pacino M, Marti U (eds) Geodesy for Planet Earth: Proceedings of the 2009 IAG Symposium, International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Buenos Aires, Argentina, vol 136, Springer, Berlin, pp 373–379. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20338-1_45

  • Wagner CA, Klosko SM (1977) Gravitational harmonics from shallow resonant orbits. Celest Mech Dyn Astron 16(2):143–163. doi:10.1007/BF01228597

  • Wagner CA, McAdoo D, Klokočník J, Kostelecký J (2006) Degradation of geopotential recovery from short repeat-cycle orbits: application to GRACE monthly fields. J Geod 80(2):94–103. doi:10.1007/s00190-006-0036-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt M, Sideris MG, Sneeuw N (2009) On the influence of the ground track on the gravity field recovery from high-low satellite-to-satellite tracking missions: CHAMP monthly gravity field recovery using the energy balance approach revisited. J Geod 83(12):1131–1143. doi:10.1007/s00190-009-0330-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto K, Otsubo T, Kubo-oka T, Fukuda Y (2005) A simulation study of effects of GRACE orbit decay on the gravity field recovery. Earth Planets Space 57(4):291–295

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We like to thank Dr. Adrian Jäggi for providing seven years of champ data. We would also like to thank the German Space Operations Center (GSOC) of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) for providing continuously and nearly 100 % of the raw telemetry data of the twin grace satellites. We also like to thank J. Kusche and J. Klokočnik as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Weigelt.

Appendices

Appendix A: Equator crossings

This appendix gives the general description for the dependency on the parity. In Sect. 2.1, the relation between one descending and all ascending arcs was used. This general description relates all descending to all ascending arcs. Consider again a circular orbit and an arbitrarily located equator crossing of an ascending arc at longitude \(\lambda ^\mathrm{a}_0\). The equator crossing of the \(p\)th ascending arc can then be found by:

$$\begin{aligned} \lambda ^\mathrm{a}_p = \lambda ^\mathrm{a}_0 + \frac{2\pi }{\beta }p, \,\text{ with}\,p = 0 \ldots \beta -1. \end{aligned}$$
(20)

Starting from \(\lambda ^\mathrm{a}_0\), the location of the first (in the timely sense) equator crossing of a descending arc is shifted by \(180^{\circ }\) minus the angle passed by the Earth during the traveling of the satellite from equator crossing of the ascending to one of the descending arc. The equator crossings of the \(q\)th descending arc is then given by:

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda ^\mathrm{d}_q = \varLambda ^\mathrm{a}_0 + \pi - \pi \frac{\alpha }{\beta } + \frac{2\pi }{\beta }q,\, \text{ with} \,q = 0 \ldots \beta -1. \end{aligned}$$
(21)

Similar to \(p\), \(q\) refers also to the East–West numbering of the equator crossing of the descending arcs and not to their timely occurrence.

The equator crossings of ascending and descending arcs will coincide if a set of \((p,q)\) can be found for which the difference of ascending and descending arcs becomes zero:

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda ^\mathrm{a}_p - \varLambda ^\mathrm{d}_q = 0. \end{aligned}$$
(22)

Inserting Eqs. (20) and (21) yields

$$\begin{aligned}&\varLambda ^\mathrm{a}_0 + \frac{2\pi }{\beta }p - \varLambda ^\mathrm{a}_0 - \pi + \pi \frac{\alpha }{\beta } - \frac{2\pi }{\beta }q = 0 \nonumber \\&\quad \Leftrightarrow \frac{2p}{\beta } - 1 + \frac{\alpha }{\beta } - \frac{2q}{\beta } = 0 \nonumber \\&\quad \Leftrightarrow 2p - \beta + \alpha - 2q = 0 \nonumber \\&\quad \Leftrightarrow | 2p - 2q | = \beta - \alpha \end{aligned}$$
(23)

The absolute bracket is added because the difference \(\left(\beta - \alpha \right)\) will always be positive. Since all quantities are integer values, Eq. (23) has only a solution in case of even parity of \(\left(\beta - \alpha \right)\).

Appendix B: Condition number

Table 4 \(log_{10}\) of the condition number for two repeat conditions each with and without order-limiting and different maximum degree for the case of noise-free data. Condition numbers beyond the computational accuracy are marked italics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weigelt, M., Sneeuw, N., Schrama, E.J.O. et al. An improved sampling rule for mapping geopotential functions of a planet from a near polar orbit. J Geod 87, 127–142 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-012-0585-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-012-0585-0

Keywords

Navigation