Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 88, Issue 11, pp 1017–1028 | Cite as

Combination of GPS and VLBI on the observation level during CONT11—common parameters, ties and inter-technique biases

Original Article

Abstract

Multi-technique space geodetic analysis software has been developed which allows to combine data on the observation level. In addition to local tie information, site-wise common parameters, i.e., troposphere and clocks, can be estimated with this software. Thus, it will be discussed how common parameters have to be estimated and where biases/offsets need to be taken into account. To test such a novel concept, Global Positioning System (GPS) and Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) data from the CONT11 campaign are being utilized. Since the VLBI baselines of this campaign extend over several thousands of kilometers, GPS data are processed in precise-point positioning mode and satellite orbits and clocks are kept fixed to the IGS final products. From the obtained results, it can be shown that the combination of space geodetic data on the observation level leads to a consistent improvement of station position repeatability as well as nuisance parameters like troposphere estimates. Furthermore, estimation of common parameters (troposphere or clocks) at co-located sites helps to improve the solution further and derive an utmost physically consistent model of the concerned parameters.

Keywords

GPS VLBI Combination GGOS 

References

  1. Altamimi Z, Collilieux X, Metivier L (2011) ITRF2008: an improved solution of the international terrestrial reference frame. J Geod 85(8):457–473. doi:10.1007/s00190-011-0444-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen G, Herring TA (1997) Effects of atmospheric azimuthal asymmetry on the analysis of space geodetic data. J Geophys Res 102(B9):20489–20502. doi:10.1029/97JB01739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coulot D, Berio P, Biancale R, Loyer S, Soudarin S, Gontier AM (2007) Toward a direct combination of space-geodetic techniques at the measurement level: methodology and main issues. J Geophys Res 112(B5):2156–2202. doi:10.1029/2006JB004336 Google Scholar
  4. Davis JL, Elgered G, Niell AE, Kuehn CE (1993) Ground-based measurements of gradients in the “wet” radio refractivity of air. Radio Sci 28(6):1003–1018. doi:10.1007/s00190-011-0444-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dow JM, Neilan RE, Rizos C (2009) The international GNSS service in a changing landscape of global navigation satellite systems. J Geod 83(3–4):191–198. doi:10.1007/s00190-008-0300-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gurtner W (2000) RINEX: the receiver-independent exchange format. GPS World 5(7):48–52Google Scholar
  7. Hobiger T, Otsubo T, Sekido M, Gotoh T, Kubooka T, Takiguchi H (2010) Fully automated VLBI analysis with c5++ for ultra-rapid determination of UT1. Earth Planets Space 45(2):75–79. doi:10.5047/eps.2010.11.008 Google Scholar
  8. Hobiger T, Otsubo T, Sekido M (2014) Combination of space geodetic observations from SLR and VLBI on the observation level with c5++. Adv Space Res 53(1):119–129. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2013.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kalman RE (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Trans ASME J Basic Eng 82(D):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelm R (2009) Rigorous variance component estimation in weekly intra-technique and inter-technique combination for global terrestrial reference frames. In:International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, vol 134, pp 39–44. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00860-3_6
  11. Koch KR (1997) Parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in linear models. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Kouba J, Heroux P (2001) Precise point positioning using IGS orbit and clock products. GPS Sol 5(2):12–28. doi:10.1007/PL00012883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lagler K, Schindelegger M, Boehm J, Krasna H, Nilsson T (2013) GPT2: empirical slant delay model for radio space geodetic techniques. Geophys Res Lett 40:1069–1073. doi:10.1002/grl.50288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Otsubo T, Gotoh T (2002) SLR-based TRF contributing to the ITRF2000 project, In: IVS 2002 General Meeting Proceedings, pp 300–303Google Scholar
  15. Otten M, Flohrer C, Springer T, Enderle W (2012) Multi-technique combination at observation level with NAPEOS: combining GPS, GLONASS and LEO satellites, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 14, EGU2012-7925-1 Google Scholar
  16. Panek P, Kodet J, Prochazka I (2013) Accuracy of two-way time transfer via a single coaxial cable. Metrologia 50(1):60–65. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/50/1/60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petit G, Luzum B (2010) IERS conventions (2010) IERS Technical Note, vol 36, p 179Google Scholar
  18. Petrachenko WT, Niell AE, Corey BE, Behrend D, Schuh H, Wresnik J (2012) VLBI2010: next generation VLBI system for Geodesy and astrometry. In: Geodesy for planet earth—International association of geodesy symposia, pp 999–1005, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20338-1_125
  19. Plank L, Boehm J, Schuh H (2011) DeDeCC—Comparison of VLBI data analysis software—results, In: 12th IVS Analysis Workshop, March 31, 2011, Bonn, Germany, http://amalthea.hg.tuwien.ac.at/~members/DeDeCC/Comparison_Campaign
  20. Ray J, Altamimi Z (2005) Evaluation of co-location ties relating the VLBI and GPS reference frames. J Geod 79(4–5):189–195. doi:10.1007/s00190-005-0456-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ray RD, Ponte RM (2003) Barometric tides from ECMWF operational analyses. Ann Geophys 21(8):1897–1910. doi:10.5194/angeo-21-1897-2003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rieck C, Haas R, Jarlemark P, Jaldehag K (2012) VLBI frequency transfer using CONT11. Eur Freq Time Forum (EFTF) pp 163–165, doi:10.1109/EFTF.2012.6502358
  23. Rothacher M, Beutler G, Bosch W, Donnellan A, Gross R, Hinderer J, Ma C, Pearlman M, Plag HP, Richter B, Ries J, Schuh H, Seitz F, Shum CK, Smith D, Thomas M, Velacognia E, Wahr J, Willis P, Woodworth P (2009) The future global geodetic observing system (GGOS). In: Plag, Pearlman (eds) The global geodetic observing system: meeting the requirements of a global society on a changing planet in 2020. Geoscience Books, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Schuh H, Behrend H (2012) VLBI: a fascinating technique for geodesy and astrometry. J Geody 61:68–80. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2012.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teke K, Boehm J, Nilsson T, Schuh H, Steigenberger P, Dach R, Heinkelmann R, Willis P, Haas R, Garcia-Espada S, Hobiger R, Ichikawa R, Shimizu S (2011) Multi-technique comparison of troposphere zenith delays and gradients during CONT08. J Geod 85(7):395–413. doi:10.1007/s00190-010-0434-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thaller D (2008) Inter-technique combination based on homogeneous normal equation systems including station coordinates, Earth orientation and troposphere parameters; Scientific Technical Report STR 08/15, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, ISSN 1610–0956Google Scholar
  27. Willis P, Fagard H, Ferrage P, Lemoine FG, Noll CE, Noomen R, Otten M, Ries JC, Rothacher M, Soudarin L, Tavernier G, Valette JJ (2010) The international DORIS service. Toward maturity. Adv Space Res 45(12):1408–1420. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2009.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Space-Time Standards GroupNational Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)Tokyo Japan
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Space SciencesChalmers University of Technology, Onsala Space ObservatoryOnsalaSweden
  3. 3.Geoscience LaboratoryHitotsubashi UniversityTokyo Japan

Personalised recommendations