Advertisement

Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 375–394 | Cite as

Band-Limited Analysis of Current Satellite-to-Satellite Tracking, Gradiometry and Combined Earth Gravity Models

  • Dimitrios Tsoulis
  • Konstantinos Patlakis
Article

Abstract

Several satellite-only gravity models based on the analysis of satellite-to-satellite tracking (SST) data have become available in the course of the last decade. The realization of the satellite missions CHAllenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) and Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) enabled the practical implementation of two modes of the SST principle, namely the high–low and the low–low SST. Though similar in their fundamental idea, which is the indirect observation of the gravity field based on the position of two satellites orbiting the Earth, the different architecture and geometrical layout of these techniques capture different fingerprints of the observed field. In the last few years, satellite-only gravity models based on the analysis of satellite gravity gradiometry (SGG) data became available and led to a new insight into the gravity field. The implementation of the SGG principle became possible after the launch of Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE), the first gravitational gradiometry mission. Based on the principle of differential accelerometry, GOCE provides the gravitational gradients which can be used in gravity field retrieval as primary observations of the field at satellite altitude. In the present study, we consider some of the current satellite-only and combined gravity models based on the analysis of CHAMP, GRACE, GOCE, gravimetry and altimetry data. In order to perform a thorough analysis of the models, we present an overview of tools for their quality assessment both in an absolute and relative sense in terms of computing spectral quantities, such as correlation or smoothing coefficients per degree and per order, attempting to demonstrate possible non-isotropic features in the models. Furthermore, typical geodetic measures in computing second-order derivatives, such as degree and order variances and difference variances, have been also evaluated for the same models, using the combined model EGM2008 as reference. Apart from these standard spectral assessment quantities, a systematic spatial representation of the second derivatives at satellite altitude has been performed. The combination of the two analysis steps (spectral and spatial) permits a first detailed assessment of the models, focusing especially on the identification of characteristic interpretable bandwidths.

Keywords

Satellite-to-satellite tracking Satellite gravity gradiometry Gravity field Satellite-only gravity models Earth gravity models Spectral assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The International Centre for Global Earth Models (ICGEM) at the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences maintains a freely accessible database of all models used in the present survey at http://icgem.gfz-potsdam.de/ICGEM. Financial support through European Space Agency (ESA) contract 22316/09/NL/CBI is highly appreciated. The two anonymous reviewers are kindly thanked for their detailed comments.

References

  1. Colombo O (1981) Global geopotential modelling from satellite-to-satellite tracking. Rep 317, Department of Geod Sci and Surv, The Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  2. Colombo O (1984) The global mapping of gravity with two satellites. Publications on Geodesy (New Series), vol 28. Netherlands Geodetic Commission, Delft, p 253. ISBN 978-90-6132-230-6Google Scholar
  3. Förste Ch, Flechtner F, Schmidt R, Stubenvoll R, Rothacher M, Kusche J, Neumayer H, Biancale R, Lemoine J-M, Barthelmes F, Bruinsma S, König R, Meyer U (2008) EIGEN-GL05C—A new global combined high-resolution GRACE-based gravity field model of the GFZ-GRGS cooperation. Geophys Res Abstr 10:EGU2008-A-03426. SRef-ID:1607-7962/gra/EGU2008-A-03426Google Scholar
  4. Hofmann-Wellenhof B, Moritz H (2005) Physical geodesy. Springer, Wien New York. ISBN 978-3-211-33544-4Google Scholar
  5. Jäggi A, Prange A, Meyer Ul, Mervart L, Beutler G, Gruber Th, Dach R, Pail R (2010) Gravity field determination at AIUB: from annual to multi-annual solutions. Geophys Res Abstr 12:EGU2010-5842Google Scholar
  6. Mayer-Gürr T, Eicker A, Kurtenbach E, Ilk KH (2010) ITG-GRACE: global static and temporal gravity field models from GRACE data. In: Flechtner F et al (eds) System earth via geodetic-geophysical space techniques. Advanced technologies in earth sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 159–168. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-10228-8_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Muller PM, Sjogren WL (1968) Mascons: lunar mass concentrations. Science 161(3842):680–684. doi: 10.1126/science.161.3842.680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pail R, Goiginger H, Mayrhofer R, Schuh WD, Brockmann JM, Krasbutter I, Höck E, Fecher T (2010) Global gravity field model derived from orbit and gradiometry data applying the time wise method. ESA Living Planet Symposium, 28 June–2 July 2010, Bergen, Norway, ESA SP-686. In: Lacoste-Francis H (ed) Proceedings of the ESA living planet symposium, Bergen, Norway 28 June–02 July 2010, ESA publication SP-686. ESA/ESTEC. ISBN:978-92-9221-250-6, ISSN:1609-042XGoogle Scholar
  9. Pavlis NK, Holmes SA, Kenyon SC, Factor JK (2012) The development and evaluation of the earth gravitational model 2008 (EGM2008). J Geophys Res 117:B04406. doi: 10.1029/2011JB008916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rummel R, van Gelderen M (1995) Meissl scheme—spectral characteristics of physical geodesy. Manuscr geod 20(5):379–385Google Scholar
  11. Rummel R, van Gelderen M, Koop R, Schrama E, Sansò F, Brovelli M, Miggliaccio F, Sacerdote F (1993) Spherical harmonic analysis of satellite gradiometry. Publications on geodesy (new series), vol 39, Netherlands Geodetic Commission, Delft, p 118 ISBN 978-90-6132-247-2Google Scholar
  12. Sneeuw N (2000) A semi-analytical approach to gravity field analysis from satellite observations. Deutsche Geodätische Kommission Reihe C (Heft 527). Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, München, p 117 ISBN (Print) 3-7696-9566-6, ISSN 0065-5325Google Scholar
  13. Sneeuw N, Sharifi MA, Keller W (2008) Gravity recovery from formation flight missions. In: Xu P, Liu J, Dermanis A (eds) VI Hotine-marussi symposium on theoretical and computational geodesy., IAG Symposia Series, vol 132Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 29–34. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74584-6_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Reigber Ch (2004) The gravity field recovery and climate experiment: mission overview and early results. Geophys Res Lett 31:L09607. doi: 10.1029/2004GL019920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tscherning CC (1985) On the long-wavelength correlation between gravity and topography. In: Kautzleben H (ed) Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium “Geodesy and Physics of the Earth”, G.D.R. Magdeburg, 23–29 September 1984. Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Physik der Erde, vol 81(2). Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Potsdam, pp 134–142Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geodesy and SurveyingAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations