Advertisement

Calibration/validation methods for GRACE

  • Christopher Jekeli
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 121)

Abstract

The upcoming GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite mission is expected to map Earth’s global gravitational field with unprecedented accuracy, especially at the long wavelengths. The measurements are line-of-sight range rates between two co-orbiting, low-altitude satellites that can be transformed into differences of geopotential and horizontal gravitation. One method to attempt the calibration and validation of GRACE data is to compare these in situ measurements using very accurate local terrestrial gravity fields that are upward continued to satellite altitude. This paper presents a rudimentary analysis of the requirements in gravity anomaly data spacing, accuracy, and extent to compute differences in disturbing potential and horizontal gravity disturbance at GRACE altitude. These studies show that to achieve the anticipated in situ accuracy of 0.01 m2/s2 in potential and 0.01 mgal in gravitation the terrestrial spacing and accuracy requirements are rather loose, e.g., 0.5° spacing and 0.25 mgal accuracy. Data extent, on the other hand, is much more important, where caps with radius larger than 10° are required, and then only to validate wavelengths smaller than 1200 km (30-deg reference field). Furthermore, it is shown that terrestrial data requirements are significantly less stringent in the case of computing horizontal gravitation differences at altitude rather than potential differences

Keywords

GRACE calibration and validation upward continuation geopotential differences gravitation differences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arabelos, D. and C.C. Tscherning (1996): Support of spaceborne gravimetry data reduction by ground based data. In: Study of Advanced Reduction Methods for Spaceborne Gravimetry Data and of Data Combination with Geophysical Parameters, CIGAR IV, ESA Final Report, H. Stünkel (ed.), Graz, Austria.Google Scholar
  2. Bettadpur, S. (ed.) (1999): Proceedings of the Third GRACE Science Team Meeting, Univ. of Texas at Austin, 23–24 June 1999, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  3. Dickey, J.O., et al. (1997): Satellite gravity and the geosphere. Report from the Committee on Earth Gravity from Space, National Research Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Jekeli, C. (1980): Reducing the error of geoid undulation computations by modifying Stokes’ function. Report 301, Dept. of Geod. Science, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  5. Jekeli, C. (1998): “The determination of gravitational potential differences from satellite-to-satellite tracking.” submitted to Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 10/1998.Google Scholar
  6. Jekeli, C. and R.H. Rapp (1980): Accuracy of the determination of mean anomalies and mean geoid undulations from a satellite gravity mapping mission. Report no.307, Department of Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  7. Jekeli, C. and T.N. Upadhyay (1990): Gravity estimation from STAGE, a satellite-to-satellite tracking mission. Journal of Geophysical Research, 95(B7), 10973–10985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MDR (Mission Design Review), 1998: Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Mission Design Review, 15–16 October, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Lemoine, F.G. et al. (1998): The development of the joint NASA GSFC and the NIMA Geopotential Model EGM96. Nasa Tech. Rep. NASA/TP-1998-206861, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
  10. NGS (1986): Geodetic Glossary. National Geodetic Information Center, NOAA, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Reigber, C., H. Luehr, and P. Schwintzer (1998): The CHAMP geopotential mission. Presented at 2nd Joint Meeting of the International Gravity Commission and the International Geoid Commission, 7–12 September 1998, Trieste, Italy.Google Scholar
  12. Rummel, R (1979): Determination of short-wavelength components of the gravity field from satellite-to-satellite tracking or satellite gradiometry — an attempt to an identification of problem areas. Manuscr Geod 4: 107–148.Google Scholar
  13. Rummel, R (1980): Geoid heights, geoid height differences, and mean gravity anomalies from “low-low” satellite-to-satellite tracking - an error analysis. Report 306, Dept of Geodetic Science., Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  14. Tapley, B.D. and C. Reigber (1998): A satellite-to-satellite tracking geopotendal mapping mission. Presented at 2nd Joint Meeting of the International Gravity Commission and the International Geoid Commission, 7–12 September 1998, Trieste, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. UT-CSR (1998): GRACE Preliminary Design Review. University of Texas, Center for Space Research, Austin, 19 – 20 August 1998.Google Scholar
  16. Wahr, J., M. Moleaaar, F. Bryan (1998): Time variability of the Earth’s gravity field: hydrological and oceanic effects and their possible detection using GRACE. J. Geophys. Res., 103(B12), 30205–30229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SPringer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Jekeli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic ScienceOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations