Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 289–309 | Cite as

GOCE Gravity Field Processing Strategy

  • R. Pail
  • G. Plank


A processing strategy and the corresponding software architecture for the processing of GOCE (Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer) observables is presented and described, with the major objective to compute a high-accuracy, high-resolution spherical harmonic model of the Earth's gravity field. The combination of two numerical solution strategies, i.e. the rigorous solution of the corresponding large normal equation systems applying parallel processing (on a PC cluster) as the core solver, and the fast semianalytic approach as a quick-look gravity field analysis (QL-GFA) tool, is proposed. Such a method fusion benefits from the advantages of the individual components: the rigorous inversion of the system providing also the full variance-covariance information, and the quickness enabling the consecutive production of intermediate gravity field solutions, for the purpose to analyse partial and incomplete data sets and to derive a diagnosis of the performance of the GOCE measurement system. The functionality and operability of the individual components are demonstrated in the framework of a closed loop simulation, which is based on a realistic mission scenario both in terms of the orbit configuration and the coloured measuring noise. Special concern is given to the accuracy of the recovered coefficients, the numerical behaviour, the required computing time, and the particular role of the individual modules within the processing chain. In the case of the core solver, it is demonstrated that the assembling and rigorous solution of large normal equation systems can be handled by using Beowulf clusters within a reasonable computing time. The application of the quick-look tool to partial data sets with short-term data gaps is demonstrated on the basis of several case studies. Additionally, the spectral analysis of the residuals of the adjustment is presented as a valuable tool for the verification of the noise characteristics of the GOCE gradiometer.

global gravity field spherical harmonics satellite gravity gradiometry distributed non-approximative adjustment field analysis data gaps PSD estimation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arsov K., Badura T., Höck E., Pail R. Rothacher M. and Švehla D., 2002. Effect of Temporal Variations on High-low SST observations. ESA Project “From Eötvös to mGal+”, Final Report, WP4, ESA/ESTEC Contract 14287/00/NL/DC, European Space Agency, 217–319.Google Scholar
  2. Cesare S., 2002. Performance requirements and budgets for the gradiometric mission. Technical Note, GOC-TN-AI-0027, Alenia Spazio, Turin, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. ESA, 1999. Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Mission. Reports for mission selection, The four candidate Earth explorer core missions, SP-1233(1), European Space Agency, Noordwijk.Google Scholar
  4. Gerlach C., Sneeuw N., Visser P. and Švehla D., 2003. CHAMP gravity field recovery with the energy balance approach: first results. In: Ch. Reigber, H. Lühr and P. Schwintzer (Eds.): First CHAMP Mission Results for Gravity, Magnetic and Atmospheric Studies, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 134–139.Google Scholar
  5. Han S.C., Jekeli C. and Shum C.K., 2002. Efficient gravity field recovery using in situ disturbing potential observables from CHAMP. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 10.1029/2002GL015180.Google Scholar
  6. Ilk K.H., 1999. Energieintegrale und Energieaustauschbeziehungen der Bewegungen künstlicher Erdsatelliten. In: F. Krumm und V.S. Schwarze (Eds.), Quo vadis geodesia?, Schriftenreihe d. Inst. d. Studienganges Geodäsie und Geoinformatik, No. 1999.6-1, Univ. Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 253–259.Google Scholar
  7. Jekeli C., 1999. The determination of gravitational potential differences from satellite-to-satellite tracking. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 75, 85–101.Google Scholar
  8. Kaula W.M., 1966. Theory of Satellite Geodesy. Blaisdell Publishing Company, Waltham, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Klees R., Koop R., Visser P.N.A.M. and van den IJssel J., 2000. Efficient gravity field recovery from GOCE gravity gradient observations. J. Geodesy, 74, 561–571.Google Scholar
  10. Koch K.R. and Kusche J., 2002. Regularization of geopotential determination from satellite data by variance components. J. Geodesy, 76, 259–268.Google Scholar
  11. Koop R. and Sünkel H. (Eds.) and the European GOCE Gravity Consortium, 2002. GOCE: Preparation of the GOCE Level 1 to Level 2 Data Processing. ESA/ESTEC Contract No. 14986/01/NL/DC, Final Report, European Space Agency, Noordwijk.Google Scholar
  12. Pail R., 2002. In-orbit calibration and local gravity field continuation problem. ESA Project “From Eötvös to mGal+”, Final Report, ESA/ESTEC Contract 14287/00/NL/DC, WP 1, 9–112, European Space Agency, Noordwijk.Google Scholar
  13. Pail R. and Plank G., 2002. Assessment of three numerical solution strategies for gravity field recovery from GOCE satellite gravity gradiometry implemented on a parallel platform. J. Geodesy, 76, 462–474.Google Scholar
  14. Pail R. and Wermuth M., 2003. GOCE SGG and SST quick-look gravity field analysis. Advances in Geosciences, 1, 1–5.Google Scholar
  15. Plank G., 2002. Implementation of the pegma-package on massive parallel systems. ESA Project “From Eötvös to mGal+”, Final report, WP 3, ESA/ESTEC Contract 14287/00/NL/DC, European Space Agency, 183–216.Google Scholar
  16. Preimesberger T. and Pail R., 2003. GOCE quick-look gravity solution: application of the semianalytic approach in the case of data gaps and non-repeat orbits. Stud. Geophys. Geod., 47, 435–453.Google Scholar
  17. Rapp R., Wang Y. and Pavlis N., 1991. The Ohio state 1991 geopotential and sea surface topography harmonic coefficient models. OSU Report, 410, Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  18. Rummel R., van Gelderen M., Koop R., Schrama E., Sansö F., Brovelli M., Miggliaccio F. and Sacerdote F., 1993. Spherical harmonic analysis of satellite gradiometry. Neth. Geod. Comm., Publications on Geodesy, 39, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Schuh W.D., 1996. Tailored Numerical Solution Strategies for the Global Determination of the Earth's Gravity Field. Mitteilungen geod. Inst. TU Graz, 81, Graz Univ. of Technology, Graz.Google Scholar
  20. Schuh W.D., 2002. Improved modeling of SGG-data sets by advanced filter strategies. ESA Project “From Eötvös to mGal+, Final Report, WP2, ESA/ESTEC Contract 14287/00/NL/DC, European Space Agency, 113–181.Google Scholar
  21. Sneeuw N., 2000. A Semi-Analytical Approach to Gravity Field Analysis from Satellite Observations. Dissertation, DGK, Reihe C, Munich, 527, Bayerische Akademie d. Wissenschaften, Munich.Google Scholar
  22. Švehla D. and Rothacher M., 2002. Kinematic orbit determination of LEOs based on zero or double difference algorithms using simulated and real SST GPS data. IAG Proceedings, Symposium No. 125, Vistas for Geodesy in the New Millenium, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  23. Švehla D. and Rothacher M., 2003a. CHAMP double difference kinematic POD with ambiguity resolution. In: Ch. Reigber, H. Lühr and P. Schwintzer (Eds.), First CHAMP Mission Results for Gravity, Magnetic and Atmospheric Studies, Springer Verlag, 70–77.Google Scholar
  24. Švehla D. and Rothacher M., 2003b. Kinematic and reduce-dynamic precise orbit determination of low Earth orbiters. Advances in Geosciences, 1, 47–56.Google Scholar
  25. Visser P.N.A.M., van den Ijssel J., Koop R. and Klees, R., 2001. Exploring gravity field determination from orbit perturbations of the European Gravity Mission GOCE. J. Geodesy, 75, 89–98.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© StudiaGeo s.r.o. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Pail
    • 1
  • G. Plank
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Navigation and Satellite GeodesyGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations