Advertisement

CHAMP, GRACE, GOCE Instruments and Beyond

  • P. TouboulEmail author
  • B. Foulon
  • B. Christophe
  • J. P. Marque
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 136)

Abstract

The electrostatic accelerometers of the CHAMP satellite as well as of the GRACE two ones have provided the necessary information to distinguish the satellite actual trajectories from the pure gravitational orbits. By providing the measurements of the satellite non-gravitational forces, one can distinguish the position or velocity fluctuations of the satellite due to the Earth gravity anomalies from those due to the drag fluctuations. In-orbit calibration and validation of on-board instruments, bandwidth, bias stability and resolution proof the success of the mission scientific geodesic return. The basic principle of these sensors stays on the servo-control of one solid mass, maintained motionless from the instrument highly stable structure. Care is paid for the mass motion detection, down to tenth of Angstrom, and to the fine measurement of the servo-controlled forces applied on the mass through electrostatic pressures. With the same concept and technologies, the GOCE inertial sensors have been designed, produced and tested to reach even better performances in order to deal with the milli-Eötvös gradiometer objectives. The performance of the instrument and the interest of the obtained measurements do not only depend on the sensor accuracy itself but also on the on-board environment (magnetic, thermal, vibrational…), on the satellite attitude motions and on the in-orbit configuration and aliasing aspects. Future missions will have also to consider these aspects, especially when envisaging cryogenic electrostatic sensors which can exhibit better self accuracy or when considering satellite to satellite laser tracking.

Keywords

Gravity Field Gravity Gradient Terrestrial Water Storage Gravity Gradiometer Grace Satellite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Rummel R, Colombo OL (1985) Gravity field determination from satellite gradiometry. Bull Geod 59:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Touboul P, Bernard A, Barlier F, Berger C (1991) Air drag effect on gradiometer measurements. Manuscripta Geodaetica 16(2):73–91Google Scholar
  3. Silvestrin P, Bernard A, Touboul P, Foulon B, Gay M, Le Clerc GM (1994) Development of ultra-sensitive spaceborne accelerometers, Preparing for the future, ESA, Vol. 4, N 2,Google Scholar
  4. McPherson KM, Nati M, Touboul P, Schütte A, Sablon G (1999) A summary of the quasi-steady acceleration environment on-board STS-94 (MSL-1). AIAA, RenoGoogle Scholar
  5. Reigber C (1995) CHAMP a challenging micro-satellite payload for geophysical research and application, GFZ Final Report, Postdam GermanyGoogle Scholar
  6. Tapley B, Bettadpur S, Ries J, Thompson M, Watkins M (2004) GRACE measurements of mass variability in the earth system. Science 305(5683):503–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Mission, ESA SP-1233(1), ESA 1999Google Scholar
  8. Touboul P, Foulon B (1998) Space accelerometer development and drop tower experiments. Space Forum 4:145–165Google Scholar
  9. Van Helleputte T, Doornbos E and Visser P, (2009) CHAMP and GRACE accelerometer calibration by GPS-based orbit determination. Adv Space Res 43Google Scholar
  10. Flury J, Bettadpur S and Tapley BD (2008) Precise accelerometry on board the GRACE gravity field satellite mission. Adv Space Res 42Google Scholar
  11. Allasio A, Muzi D, Vinai B, Cesare S, Catastini G, Bard M and Marque JP (2009) GOCE: space technology for the reference Earth gravity field determination, EUCASS 2009, VersaillesGoogle Scholar
  12. Moody MV, Paik HJ, Canavan ER (2002) Three-axis superconducting gravity gradiometer for sensitive gravity experiments. Rev Sci Instrum 73:3957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sumner TJ et al (2007) STEP (satellite test of the equivalence principle). Adv Space Res 39:254–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lafargue L, Rodrigues M, Touboul P (2002) Towards low temperature electrostatic accelerometry. Review of Scientific Instrument 73(1):196–202Google Scholar
  15. Foulon B, Christophe B and Marque JP (2009) GREMLUN: a miniaturized gravity gradiometer for planetary and small bodies exploration, IAC-08-A.3.5.9, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  16. Chassefière E (2004) Dynamo: a Mars upper atmosphere package for investigating solar wind interaction and escape processes and mapping martian fields. Adv Space Res 33:2228–2235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merkowitz S et al. (2009) ESA technology status summary LISA-MSE-RP-0001, issue1.0Google Scholar
  18. Touboul P (2009) The MICROSCOPE mission and its uncertainty analysis. Space Science Reviews, Vol. 148, Issues 1–4Google Scholar
  19. Chhun R, Hudson D, Flinoise P, Rodrigues M, Touboul P, Foulon B (2007) Equivalence principle test with MICROSCOPE: laboratory and engineering models preliminary results for evaluation of performance. Acta Astronautica 60(10–11):873–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christophe B et al (2009) Odyssey: a solar system mission. Exp Astron 23:529–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wolf P et al (2009) Quantum physics exploring gravity in the outer system: SAGAS. Exp Astron 23:651–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Touboul
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. Foulon
    • 1
  • B. Christophe
    • 1
  • J. P. Marque
    • 1
  1. 1.ONERA - The French Aerospace LabPalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations