Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp 233–251 | Cite as

Gravity field error analysis for pendulum formations by a semi-analytical approach

  • Huishu Li
  • Tilo Reubelt
  • Markus Antoni
  • Nico Sneeuw
Original Article
  • 304 Downloads

Abstract

Many geoscience disciplines push for ever higher requirements on accuracy, homogeneity and time- and space-resolution of the Earth’s gravity field. Apart from better instruments or new observables, alternative satellite formations could improve the signal and error structure compared to Grace. One possibility to increase the sensitivity and isotropy by adding cross-track information is a pair of satellites flying in a pendulum formation. This formation contains two satellites which have different ascending nodes and arguments of latitude, but have the same orbital height and inclination. In this study, the semi-analytical approach for efficient pre-mission error assessment is presented, and the transfer coefficients of range, range-rate and range-acceleration gravitational perturbations are derived analytically for the pendulum formation considering a set of opening angles. The new challenge is the time variations of the opening angle and the range, leading to temporally variable transfer coefficients. This is solved by Fourier expansion of the sine/cosine of the opening angle and the central angle. The transfer coefficients are further applied to assess the error patterns which are caused by different orbital parameters. The simulation results indicate that a significant improvement in accuracy and isotropy is obtained for small and medium initial opening angles of single polar pendulums, compared to Grace. The optimal initial opening angles are \(45^\circ \) and \(15^\circ \) for accuracy and isotropy, respectively. For a Bender configuration, which is constituted by a polar Grace and an inclined pendulum in this paper, the behaviour of results is dependent on the inclination (prograde vs. retrograde) and on the relative baseline orientation (left or right leading). The simulation for a sun-synchronous orbit shows better results for the left leading case.

Keywords

Pendulum formation Error assessment Semi-analytical approach Opening angle Grace 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the four anonymous reviewers and the editor whose comments and suggestions have significantly improved the manuscript. We like to thank Prof. Min Zhong, Prof. Zebing Zhou and Prof. Hou-Tse Hsu for their helpful suggestions. This work was started during the stay of the first author in GIS, thanks to the scholarship provided by the China Scholarship Council. This work was supported by the State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants 11235004) and Strategic Leading Science and Technology project, B category (Grants Y604111011).

References

  1. Anselmi A, Visser PNAM, van Dam T, Sneeuw N, Gruber T, Altes B, Christophe B, Cossu F, Ditmar P, Murböck M, Parisch M, Renard M, Reubelt T, Sechi G, Texieira Da Encarnacao JG (2011) Assessment of a next generation gravity mission to monitor the variations of Earth’s gravity field. ESA-contract No.: 22643/09/NL/AF, Executive Summary, Thales Alenia Space report, SD-RP-AI-0721, March 2011Google Scholar
  2. Bender P, Wiese D, Nerem R (2008) A possible dual-GRACE mission with 90 degree and 63 degree inclination orbits. In: 3rd international symposium on formation flying, mission and technology, pp 1–6, Noordwijk, Netherlands. ESA SP-654. ISBN 978-92-9221-218-6Google Scholar
  3. Colombo OL (1984) The global mapping of gravity with two satellites. Publications on Geodesy, vol 7, New Series 3, Netherlands Geodetic CommissionGoogle Scholar
  4. Elsaka B, Raimondo J-C, Brieden P, Reubelt T, Kusche J, Flechtner F, Iran Pour S, Sneeuw N, Müller J (2013) Comparing seven candidate mission configurations for temporal gravity field retrieval through full-scale numerical simulation. J Geodesy 88(1):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giacaglia GEO (1980) Transformations of spherical harmonics and applications to geodesy and satellite theory. Studia geoph. et geod 24:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gruber T, NGGM-D Team (2014) e2.motion: Earth system mass transport mission (Square)—concept for a next generation gravity field mission—final report of project satellite gravimetry of the next generation (NGGM-D). Deutsche Geodätische Kommission der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Reihe B Angewandte Geodäsie Heft Nr. 318, München, ISBN 978-3-7696-8597-8Google Scholar
  7. Hill GW (1878) Researches in the lunar theory. American Journal of Mathematics, 1:5–26, 129–147, 245–260. The Johns Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Iran Pour S, Reubelt T, Sneeuw N (2013) Quality assessment of sub-Nyquist recovery from future gravity satellite missions. Adv Space Res 52(5):916–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mackenzie R, Moore P (1997) A geopotential error analysis for a non planar satellite to satellite tracking mission. J Geodesy 71:262–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morse PM, Erdelyi A, Gray MC, Metropolis N, Rosser JB, Thacher Jr HC, Todd J, Tompkins CB, Tukey JW (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. In: Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (eds) National Bureau of Standards, Applied Mathematics Series 55. United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  11. NG2 Team (2011) Assessment of a next generation gravity mission to monitor the variations of Earth’s gravity field. Final report, ESTEC Contract No.: 22672/09/NL/AF, Doc. No.: NG2-ASG-FR, Issue:1. 10 Oct 2011Google Scholar
  12. Reubelt T, Sneeuw N, Iran Pour S (2011) Quick-look gravity field analysis of formation scenarios selection. In: Geotechnologien, Science Report No. 17, pp 126–133. Statusseminar “Observation of the System Earth from Space”Google Scholar
  13. Reubelt T, Sneeuw N, Iran Pour S, Hirth M, Fichter W, Müller J, Brieden P, Flechtner F, Raimondo J-C, Kusche J, Elsaka B, Gruber T, Pail R, Murböck M, Doll B, Sand R, Wang X, Klein V, Lezius M, Danzmann K, Heinzel G, Sheard B, Rasel E, Gilowski M, Schubert C, Schäfer W, Rathke A, Dittus H, Pelivan I (2014) Future gravity field satellite missions. In: Flechtner F, Sneeuw N, Schuh W-D (eds) Observation of the system Earth from space—CHAMP, GRACE, GOCE and future missions. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schaub H, Junkins JL (2002) Analytical mechanics of aerospace systems. AIAA education series, RestonGoogle Scholar
  15. Schrama EJO (1991) Gravity field error analysis: applications of global positioning system receivers and gradiometers on low orbiting platforms. J Geophys Res 96(B12):20041–20051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sharifi M, Sneeuw N, Keller W (2007) Gravity recovery capability of four generic satellite formations. In: 1st Int. Symp. of the International Gravity Field Service, vol 18, pp 211–216, Istanbul, Turkey. ISSN 1300-5790Google Scholar
  17. Sneeuw N (1992) Representation coefficients and their use in satellite geodesy. Manuscripta Geodaetica 17:117–123Google Scholar
  18. Sneeuw N (2000) A semi-analytical approach to gravity field analysis from satellite observations. PhD thesis, Technische Universität MünchenGoogle Scholar
  19. Sneeuw N, Schaub H (2005) Satellite clusters for future gravity field missions. In: Jekeli C, Bastos L, Fernandes J (eds), Gravity, geoid and space missions, vol 129, 2005, pp 12–17, Porto, Portugal. GGSM 2004 IAG International Symposium. ISBN: 978-3-540-26930-4 (Print) 978-3-540-26932-8 (Online)Google Scholar
  20. Tapley BD, Watkins MM, Bettadpur S, Reigber C (2004) The gravity recovery and climate experiment: mission overview and early results. Geophys Res Lett 31:L09607. Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data SystemGoogle Scholar
  21. Visser PNAM (2005) Low-low satellite-to-satellite tracking: a comparison between analytical linear orbit perturbation theory and numerical integration. J Geodesy 79:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Visser PNAM, van den IJssel J, Koop R, Klees R (2001) Exploring gravity field determination from orbit perturbations of the european gravity mission GOCE. J Geodesy 75:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wiese DN, Folkner WM, Nerem RS (2009) Alternative mission architectures for a gravity recovery satellite mission. J Geodesy 83(6):569–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geophysics, School of PhysicsHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Institute of GeodesyUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Geodesy and GeophysicsChinese Academy of SciencesWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations