On the energy integral formulation of gravitational potential differences from satellite-to-satellite tracking
- 355 Downloads
Two approaches have been formulated to compute the gravitational potential difference using low–low satellite-to-satellite tracking data based on energy integral: one in the geocentric inertial reference system, and the other in the terrestrial reference system. The focus of this work is on the approach in the geocentric inertial reference system, where a potential rotation term appears in addition to the potential term. In former formulations, the contribution of the time-variable components of the gravitational potential to the potential term was included, but their contribution to the potential rotation term was neglected. In this work, an improvement to the former formulations is made by reformulating the potential rotation term to include the contribution of the time-variable components of the gravitational potential. A simulation shows that our more accurate formulation of the potential rotation term is necessary to achieve the accuracy for recovering the temporal variation of the Earth’s gravity field, such as for use to the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment GRACE observation data based on this approach.
KeywordsGravity Satellite-satellite tracking GRACE Energy integral method Potential difference Potential rotation term Jekeli formulation
This research is supported by grants from NASA’s GRACE Science Team Program (NNX12AJ95G), Concept in Advanced Geodesy Program (NNX12AK28G), Cryosphere Program (NNX11AR47G), and the State Key Laboratory of Geodesy and Earth’s Dynamics, Institute of geodesy and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (SKLGED2015-5-3-E). GRACE data product is from Univ. of Texas Center for Space Research via JPL/PODAAC. The figures in this paper were generated using Generic Mapping Tools (GMT) (Wessel and Smith 1991).
- Ilk, K.H., Eicker, A., Mayer-Grr, T.: Global gravity field recovery by merging regional focusing patches: an integrated approach. Int. Assoc. Geod. Symp., 2007, vol. 130, Part III, pp. 329–336, (2007), doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-49350-1_49
- Pavlis, N.K., Holmes, S.A., Kenyon, S.C., Factor, J.K.: An Earth Gravitational Model to Degree 2160: EGM2008. EGU General Assembly 2008, April 13–18, 2008, Vienna, Austria (2008)Google Scholar
- Petit, G., Luzum, B. (eds.): IERS Conventions (2010): IERS Technical Note No. 36, International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (2010)Google Scholar
- Rowlands, D.D., Luthcke, S.B., McCarthy, J.J., Klosko, S.M., Chinn, D.S., Lemoine, F.G.: Global mass flux solutions from GRACE: a comparison of parameter estimation strategies—mass concentrations versus Stokes coefficients. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B01403 (2010). doi: 10.1029/2009JB006546 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- Shang, K., Guo, J.Y., Luo, J., Shum, C.K., Dai, C.L.: Temporal gravity estimation from GRACE observation based on dynamic energy balance approach, 2013 International Symposium Asia–Pacific Space Geodynamics, Columbus, Ohio, 14–17 October, 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
- Shang, K., Guo, J.Y., Dai, C.L., Duan, J.B., Shum, C.K., Schmidt, M.G. et al.: GRACE estimated terrestrial and aquifer storage change using an improved energy balance and regional gravity modeling approach, AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco, 15–19 December, 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
- Watkins, M.M., Yuan, D., Kuang, D., Bertiger, W., Kim, M., Kruizinga, G.: GRACE Harmonic and Mascon Solutions at JPL. EOS Trans. AGU, 86(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract G22A–04 (2005)Google Scholar
- Watkins, M.M., Yuan, D., Kruizinga, G.: Alternative gravity field representations: solutions, characteristics, and issues. GRACE Science Team Meeting, October 15–17, 2007, Potsdam, Germany (2007)Google Scholar