Advertisement

IGFS 2014 pp 27-38 | Cite as

Airborne Gravimetry for Geoid and GOCE

  • R. ForsbergEmail author
  • A. V. Olesen
  • E. Nielsen
  • I. Einarsson
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 144)

Abstract

DTU-Space has since 1996 carried out large area airborne surveys over both polar, tropical and temperate regions, especially for geoid determination and global geopotential models. Recently we have started flying two gravimeters (LCR and Chekan-AM) side by side for increased reliability and redundancy. Typical gravity results are at the 2 mGal rms level, translating into 5–10 cm accuracy in geoid. However, in rough mountainous areas results can be more noisy, mainly due to long-period mountain waves and turbulence. In the paper we outline results of surveys and recent geoid determinations in Antarctica and Tanzania based on DTU-Space aerogravity and GOCE. In both cases the airborne data validate GOCE to very high degrees, and confirms the synergy of airborne gravity and GOCE. For Antarctica, the deep interior Antarctic survey (continued in 2013 from a remote field camp), shows that it is possible efficiently to cover even the most remote regions on the planet with good aerogravity. With the recent termination of the GOCE mission, it is therefore timely to initiate a coordinated, preferably international, airborne gravity effort to cover the polar gap south of 83° S; such a survey can in principle logistically be done in a single season.

Keywords

Airborne gravity Geoid GOCE Gravimeter 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The survey costs for Antarctica were sponsored by NGA, ESA and DTU Space, and for Tanzania by the Department of Survey, Tanzania, the World Bank and NGA. The Antarctica operations where carried out in cooperation with British Antarctic Survey, the Norwegian Polar Institute, and the University of Texas at Austin.

References

  1. Bell RE, Coakley BJ, Blankenship DD, Hodge SM, Brozena JM, Jarvis J (1992) Airborne gravity from a light aircraft: CASERTZ 1990–91. In: Yoshida Y (ed) Recent progress in antarctic earth science. Terrapub, Tokyo, pp 571–577Google Scholar
  2. Brozena JM (1992) The greenland aerogeophysics project: airborne gravity, topographic and magnetic mapping of an entire continent. In: Colombo O (ed) From mars to greenland, proc. IAG symposia, vol 110. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 203–214Google Scholar
  3. Elieff S, Ferguson S (2008) Establishing the “air truth” from 10 years of airborne gravimeter data. First Break, 26, November 2008Google Scholar
  4. Forsberg R, Brozena J (1996) Airborne geoid measurements in the Arctic ocean. In: Proceedings international symposium on gravity, Geoid and marine geodesy, Tokyo, Sept. 1996. IAG series, vol 117. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 139–147Google Scholar
  5. Forsberg R, Olesen AV (2010) Airborne gravity field determination. In: Xu G (ed) Sciences of geodesy – I, Advances and future directions. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 83–104. ISBN 978-3-642-11741-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forsberg R, Hehl K, Bastos L, Giskehaug A, Meyer U (1996) Development of an airborne geoid mapping system for coastal oceanograoh (AGMASCO). In: Proceedings international symposium on gravity, Geoid and marine geodesy, Tokyo, Sept. 1996. IAG series, vol 117. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 163–170.Google Scholar
  7. Forsberg, R, Olesen A, Munkhtsetseg D, Amarzaya A (2007): Downward continuation and geoid determination in Mongolia from airborne and surface gravimetry and SRTM topography. Proceedings of the 1st Symposium of the International Gravity Field Service, Harita Dergisi, 73(18), 259--264, Ankara.Google Scholar
  8. Forsberg R, Olesen AV, Einarsson I, Manandhar N, Shreshta K (2011) Geoid of Nepal from airborne gravity survey. Proceedings IAG Symposia, vol 139. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Melbourne, pp 521–528Google Scholar
  9. Forsberg R, Olesen A, Alshasi A, Gidskehaug A, Ses S, Kadir M, Majid K, Benny P (2012) Airborne gravimetry survey for the marine area of the United Arab Emirates. Marine Geodesy 35(3):221–232. doi: 10.1080/01490419.2012.672874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klingele E, Halliday M, Cocard M, Kahle H-G (1995) Airborne gravimetric survey of Switzerland. Vermessung Photogrammetrie Kulturtechnik 4:248–253Google Scholar
  11. Krasnov AA, Nesenyuk LP, Peshekhonov VG, Sokolov AV, Elinson LS (2011) Integrated marine gravimetric system. Development and operation results. Gyrosc Navig 2(2):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Olesen AV (2002) Improved airborne scalar gravimetry for regional gravity field mapping and geoid determination. Ph.d. dissertation, National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark Technical Report 24, p 123Google Scholar
  13. Olesen AV, Forsberg R, Keller K, Gidskehaug A (2000) Airborne gravity survey of the Lincoln Sea and Wandel Sea, North Greenland. Phys Chem Earth A 25(1):25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pail R, Bruinsma S, Migliaccio F, Foerste C, Goiginger H, Schuh W-D, Hoeck E, Reguzzoni M, Brockmann JM, Abrikosov O, Veicherts M, Fecher T, Mayrhofer R, Krasbutter I, Sanso F, Tscherning CC (2011) First GOCE gravity field models derived by three different approaches. J Geod 85(11):819–843 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwarz K-P, Sideris MG, Forsberg R (1990) Use of FFT methods in physical geodesy. Geophys J Int 100:485–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Valliant HD (1991) The LaCoste and Romberg air/sea gravity meter: an overview. Geophysical exploration at sea, 2nd edn, vol 1, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 141–176Google Scholar
  17. Williams S, MacQueen JD (2001) Development of a versatile, commercially proven, and cost-effective airborne gravity system. Leading Edge 60:651–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Forsberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. V. Olesen
    • 1
  • E. Nielsen
    • 1
  • I. Einarsson
    • 1
  1. 1.National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU-Space)LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations