Geodetic Methods for Calibration of GRACE and GOCE

  • Johannes Bouman
  • Radboud Koop
Part of the Space Sciences Series of ISSI book series (SSSI, volume 17)


It is beyond doubt that calibration and validation are essential tools in the process of reaching the goals of gravity missions like GRACE and GOCE and to obtain results of the highest possible quality. Both tools, although general and obvious instruments for any mission, have specific features for gravity missions. Therefore, it is necessary to define exactly what is expected (and what cannot be expected) from calibration and what from validation and how these tools should work in our case. The general calibration and validation schemes for GRACE and GOCE arc outlined. Calibration will be linked directly to the instrument and the measurements whereas validation will he linked to data derived from the original measurements. Calibration includes on-ground, internal. and external calibration as well as error assessment. The calibration phase results in corrected measurements along with an a posteriori error model. Validation of e.g. calibrated measurements or geoid heights means checking against independent data to assess whether there are no systematic errors left and/or whether the error model describes the true error reasonably well. Geodetic methods for calibration typically refer lo external calibration and error assessment, and will be illustrated With an example.


GRACE GOCE calibration validation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cesare. S.: 2002, ‘Performance requirements and budgets for the gradiometric mission’. Issue I GO-TN-A1–0027, Preliminary Design Review, A lenta.Google Scholar
  2. ESA: 1999, ‘Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Mission’. Reports for mission selection; the four candidate earth explorer core missions. ESA SP-1233(1).Google Scholar
  3. Koop, R.. P. Visser, and C. Tscherning: 2001, ‘Aspects of GOCE calibration’. In: International GOCE user workshop. Vol. WPP-188.Google Scholar
  4. Lemoine. F., S. Kenyon, J. Factor, R. Trimmer, N. Pavlis, D. Chinn. C. Cox, S. Klosko, S. Luthcke. M. Torrence, Y. Wang, R. Williamson, E. Pavlis, R. Rap p. and T. Olson: 1998, “The development of the joint NASA GSFC and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) geopotential model EGM96’. TP 1998–206861. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.Google Scholar
  5. Rapp. R., Y. Wang, and N. Pavlis: 1991, ‘The Ohio Slate 1991 geopotential and sea surface topography harmonic coefficient models’. Repori No, 410. OSU.Google Scholar
  6. SID: 2000, “GOCE End-to-End Performance Analysis’. Final Report ESTEC Contract No. I2735/98/NL/GD. SID.Google Scholar
  7. Tapley, B. and C. Reigben 1999, ‘GRACE: a sateilite-to-saiellile tracking geopotential mapping mission’. In: 1. M arson and H. Siinkel (eds.): Boi telino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicala, Sep.-Dee. 1999, Proceedings of the 2nd Join! Meeting of the International Gravity and ihe International Geoid Commission, Trieste 7–12 Sept. 1998, ISSN 0006–6729. Vol. 40, p. 291.Google Scholar
  8. Velicogna. I..J. Wahr.C. Mtlly.M. Shaltout. and A. ArRajehi: 2000, ‘Validation of GRACE Satellite Geoid Measurements’. Poster presented at AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  9. Willemenot, E.: 1999, “Capacitive gradiomctcr: Calibration and verification approach’. Concluding Technical Report RTS 19/3825 DMPH/Y, Onera.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Bouman
    • 1
  • Radboud Koop
    • 1
  1. 1.SRON National Institute for Space ResearchUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations