Advertisement

A Comparison of Various Procedures for Global Gravity Field Recovery from CHAMP Orbits

  • Torsten Mayer-Guerr
  • Martin Feuchtinger
  • Juergen Kusche

Summary

We compare selected techniques for recovering the global gravity field from precisely determined kinematic CHAMP orbits. The first method derives the second derivatives by use of an interpolation polynomial. The second procedure is based on Newton's equation of motion, formulated and solved as a boundary value problem in time equivalent to a corresponding integral equation of Fredholm type. It is applied to short arcs of the CHAMP orbits. The third method is based on the energy balance principle. We implement the analysis of in-situ potential differences following Jekeli's formulation. The normal equations from the three approaches are solved using Tikhonov-type regularization, where the regularization parameter is computed according to a variance component estimation procedure. The results are compared with the recent satellite-only model EIGEN2 and the first GRACE model GGM01s. All methods provide solutions of the gravity field which represent significant improvements with respect to the reference model EGM96 below degree 50. The quality of the solutions differs only slightly.

Key words

CHAMP gravity field recovery boundary value problem polynomial interpolation energy balance approach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Austen G, Grafarend E and Reubelt T (2002) Analysis of the Earth's Gravitational Field from semi-continuous Ephemerides of a low Earth Orbiting GPS-tracked Satellite of type CHAMP, GRACE or GOCE. In: Adam J and Schwarz KP (eds), Vistas for Geodesy in the New Millenium, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg: 309–315.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ditmer P and van Eckvan der Sluis A (2003) A Technique for Earth's Gravity Field Modeling on the Basis of Satellite Accelerations, accepted for J Geodesy.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerlach C, Sneeuw N, Visser P, Svehla D (2003) CHAMP gravity field recovery with the energy balance approach: first results. In: Reigber C, Lühr H, Schwintzer P (eds), First CHAMP Mission Results for Gravity, Magnetic and Atmospheric Studies, Springer, Berlin: 134–139.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howe E, Stenseng L, Tscherning CC (2003) Analysis of one Month of State Vector and Accelerometer Data for the Recovery of the Gravity Potential. Adv Geosciences 1: 1–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ilk KH, Feuchtinger M, Mayer-Guerr T (2003) Gravity Field Recovery and Validation by Analysis of Short Arcs of a Satellite-to-Satellite Tracking Experiment as CHAMP and GRACE. Presented at the Gen. Ass. of the IUGG 2003, Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ilk KH, Loecher A (2003) The Use of Energy Balance Relations for Validation of Gravity Field Models and Orbit Determination Results. Presented at the Gen. Ass. of the IUGG 2003, Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kusche J (2003) A Monte-Carlo Technique for Weight Estimation in Satellie Geodesy. J Geodesy 76: 641–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schneider M (1967) Lösungsvorschlag zum Bahnbestimmungsproblem. BWF Bericht W67–35.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svehla D, Rothacher M (2003) Kinematic Precise Orbit Determination for Gravity Field Determination. Presented at the General Assembly of the IUGG 2003, Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torsten Mayer-Guerr
    • 1
  • Martin Feuchtinger
    • 1
  • Juergen Kusche
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Theoretical GeodesyUniversity BonnGermany
  2. 2.DEOS, Delft University of TechnologyNetherlands

Personalised recommendations