Advertisement

Calibration of GRACE Accelerometers Using Two Types of Reference Accelerations

  • Igor KochEmail author
  • Akbar Shabanloui
  • Jakob Flury
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 149)

Abstract

Two approaches for the calibration of GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) accelerometers are revisited. In the first approach, surface forces acting on the satellite are considered to derive the reference acceleration. In the second approach, the total acceleration consisting of a gravitational and a non-gravitational contribution is first determined from the reduced-dynamic orbits. The approximation of discrete satellite positions by a polynomial function allows the total acceleration to be obtained by a twofold derivative w.r.t. time. Calibration parameters (scale factor and bias) and statistical values are estimated for periods with a low and high solar activity. The quality of these two approaches shows dependencies on solar activity and consequent variations in the magnitude of the non-gravitational reference acceleration. Besides, the quality of the presented results is affected by the orientation of the orbital plane w.r.t. the Sun. The second approach is vitiated by a periodic disturbing signal on cross-track axis. This signal has been pointed out in earlier studies (Calabia et al., Aerosp Sci Technol 45, 2015; Calabia and Jin, Aerosp Sci Technol 49, 2016). We apply a moving window median filter to recover the underlying non-gravitational signal for accelerometer calibration. The calibration is accomplished by a direct comparison of reference accelerations and observed accelerometer measurements without introducing any a priori values or constraints. The focus of this work is more sensor oriented than gravity field recovery (GFR) related. Nevertheless, the results can be used as initial values for precise orbit determination (POD) or for pre-processing of accelerometer measurements in a multi step gravity field recovery approach (Klinger and Mayer-Gürr, Adv Space Res 58(9), 2016).

Keywords

Accelerometry GRACE Satellite accelerometer calibration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful for the valuable comments of the three anonymous reviewers who helped to improve this article considerably. JPL is acknowledged for providing GRACE Level 1B data. Collaborative Research Centre 1128 “Relativistic Geodesy and Gravimetry with Quantum Sensors (geo-Q)” is acknowledged for financial support.

References

  1. Bettadpur S (2009) Recommendation for a-priori bias & scale parameters for Level-1B ACC data (version 2). Tech. note, Center for Space ResearchGoogle Scholar
  2. Bettadpur S (2012) Product specification document GRACE 327–720. Tech. rep., Center for Space ResearchGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettadpur S (2018) UTCSR Level-2 processing standards document for Level-2 product release 0006. Tech. rep., Center for Space ResearchGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezděk A (2010) Calibration of accelerometers aboard GRACE satellites by comparison with POD-based nongravitational accelerations. J Geodyn 50Google Scholar
  5. Biancale R, Bode A (2006) Mean annual and seasonal atmospheric tide models based on 3-hourly and 6-hourly ECMWF surface pressure data. Scientific Technical Report STR06/01, GeoForschungsZentrum PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruinsma S, Biancale R, Perosanz F (2007) Calibration parameters of the CHAMP and GRACE accelerometers. Poster, CNES, department of Terrestrial and Planetary Geodesy, GeoForschungsZentrum PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabia A, Jin S (2016) Assessment of conservative force models from GRACE accelerometers and precise orbit determination. Aerosp Sci Technol 49Google Scholar
  8. Calabia A, Jin S, Tenzer R (2015) A new GPS-based calibration of GRACE accelerometers using the arc-to-chord threshold uncovered sinusoidal disturbing signal. Aerosp Sci Technol 45Google Scholar
  9. Case K, Kruizinga G, Wu SC (2010) GRACE Level 1B data product user handbook. Tech. rep., Jet Propulsion LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahle C, Flechtner F, Gruber C, König D, König R, Michalak G, Neumayer K-H (2012) GFZ GRACE Level-2 processing standards document for Level-2 product release 0005. Tech. rep., GeoForschungsZentrumGoogle Scholar
  11. Desai S (2002) Observing the pole tide with satellite altimetry. J Geophys 1078(C11)Google Scholar
  12. Dobslaw H, Bergmann-Wolf I, Dill R, Poropat L, Thomas M, Dahle C, Esselborn S, König R, Flechtner F (2017) A new high-resolution model of non-tidal atmosphere and ocean mass variability for de-aliasing of satellite gravity observations: AOD1B RL06, 2017. Geophys J Int 211(1):263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doornbos E (2011) Thermospheric density and wind determination from satellite dynamics. Ph.D thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  14. Flury J, Bettadpur S, Tapley BD (2008) Precise accelerometry onboard the GRACE gravity field satellite mission. Adv Space Res 42(8):1414–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Folkner WM, Williams JG, Boggs, DH, Park RS, Kuchynka P (2014) The planetary and lunar ephemerides DE430 and DE431. IPN Progress ReportGoogle Scholar
  16. Förste C, Bruinsma S, Rudenko S, Abrikosov O, Lemoine JM, Marty JC, Neumayer KH, Biancale R (2015) EIGEN-6S4: A time-variable satellite-only gravity field model to d/o 300 based on LAGEOS, GRACE and GOCE data from the collaboration of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS Toulouse. European Geosciences Union, General Assembly 2015 Vienna (Austria) 12–17 April 2015Google Scholar
  17. Van Helleputte T, Doornbos E, Visser P (2009) CHAMP and GRACE accelerometer calibration by GPS-based orbit determination. Adv Space Res 43:1890–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klinger B, Mayer-Gürr T (2016) The role of accelerometer data calibration within GRACE gravity field recovery: Results from ITSG-Grace2016. Adv Space Res 58(9)Google Scholar
  19. Luers JK, Wenning RH (1971) Polynomial smoothing: linear vs cubic. Technometrics 13(3):589–600Google Scholar
  20. Montenbruck O, Gill E (2005) Satellite orbits - models, methods and applications. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. Petit G, Luzum B (eds) (2010) IERS Conventions 2010. Verlag des Bundesamts für Kartographie und Geodäsie, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  22. Picone JM, Hedin AE, Drob DP (2002) NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues. J Geophys Res 107Google Scholar
  23. Rieser D, Mayer-Gürr T, Savcenko R, Bosch W, Wünsch J, Dahle C, Flechtner F (2012) The ocean tide model EOT11a in spherical harmonics representation. Tech. noteGoogle Scholar
  24. Sutton E (2008) Effects of solar disturbances on the thermosphere densities and winds from CHAMP and GRACE satellite accelerometer data. University of Colorado at BoulderGoogle Scholar
  25. Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Reigber C (2004) The gravity recovery and climate experiment: Mission overview and early results. Geophys Res Lett 31(9)Google Scholar
  26. Watkins MM, Yuan D-N (2014) JPL Level-2 processing standards document, for Level-2 product release 05.1. Tech. rep., Jet Propulsion LaboratoryGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für ErdmessungLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations