Space-Wise, Time-Wise, Torus and Rosborough Representations in Gravity Field Modelling

  • Nico Sneeuw
Part of the Space Sciences Series of ISSI book series (SSSI, volume 17)


The decade of the geopotentials started July 2000 with the launch of the German high-low sst mission champ, Together with the joint nasa-dlr low-low sst mission grace and the esa gradiometry mission goce an unprecedented wealth of geopotential data becomes available over the next few years.

Due to the sheer number of unknown gravity field parameters (up to 100000) and of observations (millions), especially the latter two missions are highly demanding in terms of computational requirements. In this paper several modelling strategies are presented that are based on a semi-analytical approach. In this approach the set of normal equations becomes block-diagonal with maximum block-sizes smaller than the spherical harmonic degree of resolution. The block-diagonality leads to a rapid and powerful gravity field analysis tool.

Beyond the more-or-less conventional space-wise and time-wise formulations, the torus approach and Rosborough’s representation are discussed. A trade-off between pros and cons of each of the modelling strategies will be given.


Gravity field representations space-wise time-wise Kaula torus approach Rosborough CHAMP GRACE GOCE 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balmino, G.: 1996, ‘A Note on Rosborough transformation’, unpublished memorandum.Google Scholar
  2. Ditmar R. R. Klees.: 2002 ‘A Method to Compute the Earth’s Gravity Field from SGG/SST Data to be Acquired by the GOCE Satellite’, DUP Science, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  3. Kaula, W.M.: 1966, Theory of satellite geodesy,Blaisdell Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  4. Koop, R.: 1993. Global Gravity Field Modelling Using Satellite Gravity Gradiometry, Publications on Geodesy, New Series 38, Netherlands Geodetic CommissionGoogle Scholar
  5. Klees, R. R., Koop, P., Visser, and J.. van den IJssel.: 2000, Fast Gravity Field Recovery From GOCE Gravity Gradient Observations. J. Geodesy 74: 561–571Google Scholar
  6. Rosborough, G.W.: 1986, Satellite Orbit Perturbations due to the Geopotential, CSR-86–1 Google Scholar
  7. Rummel, R. M., van Gelderen, R. Koop, E. Schrama, F. Sansô, M. Brovelli, F. Migliaccio, F. Sacerdote.: 1993, Spherical harmonic analysis of satellite gradiometry, Publications on Geodesy, New Series 39, Netherlands Geodetic CommissionGoogle Scholar
  8. Schrama, E.J.O.: 1991, Gravity Field Error Analysis: Applications of Global Positioning System Receivers and Gradiometers on Low Orbiting Platforms. J. Geophys. Res. 96(B12):20 041–20 0051Google Scholar
  9. Schuh, W.D.: 1996, Tailored Numerical Solution Strategies for the Global Determination of the Earth’s Gravity Field. Mitteilungen der Universität Graz. Folge 81 Google Scholar
  10. Sneeuw, N.: 2000, A semi-analytical approach to gravity field analysis from satellite observations. Deutsche Geodlitische Kommission, Reihe C. Nr. 527 Google Scholar
  11. Sneeuw, N.: 2001, Satellite Geodesy on the Toms — Block-Diagonality from a Semi-Analytical Approach. in: M Sideris (ed.) Gravity, Geoid, and Geodynamics 2000, JAG symposium 123. pp. 137–142, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  12. Visser, P.N.A.M.. J. van den Ijssel. R. Koop, and R. Klees.: 2001, Exploring gravity field determination from orbit perturbations of the European Gravity Mission GOCE. J. Geodesy 75: 89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nico Sneeuw
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geomatics EngineeringUniversity of Calgary 2500 University Drive N.W.CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations