Designing Earth Gravity Field Missions for the Future: A Case Study

  • P. N. A. M. VisserEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 135)


Gravity field changes due to mass changes in the Earth system have been observed successfully by the GRACE mission. Having a single tandem like GRACE limits the achievable resolution of observing such mass changes both in time and space. A simulation study was carried out to make a first assessment of the impact of different gravity satellite formations on the retrieval of temporal gravity, in this case caused by hydrology. These formations include polar formations of one, two and four GRACE-type tandems and a formation that includes one polar and one non-polar tandem. A comprehensive force modeling was used including gravity field changes due to ocean tides and hydrological, atmospheric, oceanographic, solid-earth and ice mass change processes. The impact of errors in these models in conjunction with observation errors by the space-borne gravity instruments was assessed. First results indicate that having more than one tandem helps to reduce the impact of errors in background models such as ocean tides, provided that instrument observation errors are sufficiently low.


Space-borne gravimetry Future missions Low–low satellite-to-satellite tracking Observation errors Model errors Satellite formations 



ESA provided the funding for a large part of the research described in this paper. An important part of the computations and simulations were done with the GEODYN software, kindly provided by NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, Maryland.


  1. Bender, P.L., S.N. Wiese, and R.S. Nerem (2008). A possible dual-GRACE mission with 90 degree and 63 degree inclination orbits. In: ESA (ed), 3rd International symposium on formation flying, missions and technologies, 23–25 April 2008, ESA/ESTEC. Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. Colombo, O.L. (1984). The global mapping of gravity with two satellites, vol. 7, no. 3, Netherlands Geodetic Commission, Publications on Geodesy, New Series.Google Scholar
  3. Drinkwater, M., R. Haagmans, D. Muzzi, A. Popescu, R. Floberghagen, M. Kern, and M. Fehringer (2007). The GOCE gravity mission: ESA’s first core explorer, in 3rd GOCE User Workshop, 6–8 November 2006, Frascati, Italy, pp. 1–7, ESA SP-627.Google Scholar
  4. Egbert, G.D. and S.Y. Erofeeva (2002). Efficient inverse modeling of barotropic ocean tides. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 19, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ESA (1999). Gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation mission. Reports for mission selection, the four candidate earth explorer core missions, SP-1233(1), European Space Agency, July 1999.Google Scholar
  6. Koop, R. and R. Rummel (Eds.) (2008). Report from the workshop on the future of satellite gravimetry. 12–13 April 2007, ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 1–21, TUM Institute for Advanced Study, January 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Lyard, F., F. Lefevre, T. Letellier, and O. Francis (2006). Modelling the global ocean tides: modern insights from FES2004, Ocean Dynamics, 56(5–6), 394–415, doi: 10.1007/s10236–006–0086–x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meissl P. (1971). A study of covariance functions related to the earth’s disturbing potential, Report no. 151, Department of Geodetic Science, OSU, Ohio, Columbus.Google Scholar
  9. Pavlis, D.E., S. Poulouse, and J.J. McCarthy (2006). GEODYN operations manual. Contractor report. SGT Inc., Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
  10. Reubelt, T., N. Sneeuw, and M.A. Sharifi (2009). Future mission design options for spatio-temporal geopotential recovery. In: IAG international symposium on gravity, geoid & earth observation 2008, this issue.Google Scholar
  11. Schrama, E.J.O., B. Wouters, and D.D. Lavallée (2007). Signal and noise in gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) observed surface mass observations. J. Geophys. Res., 112(B08407), doi: 10.1029/2006JB004882.Google Scholar
  12. Study Team1 (2007). Mass Transport Study: Selection of models for the simulation study, ESA Contract 20403, Task 2 Report, RP-G-013SR/07, Issue 1, Revision 3.Google Scholar
  13. Tapley, B.D., D.P. Chambers, S. Bettadpur, and J.C. Ries (2003), Large scale ocean circulation from the GRACE GGM01 geoid. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(22), 2163, doi: 10.1029/2003GL018622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tapley, B.D., S. Bettadpur, J.C. Ries, P.F. Thompson, and M.M. Watkins (2004). GRACE measurements of mass variability in the earth system. Science, 305, 1503–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Velicogna, I. and J. Wahr (2006). Acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring 2004. Nature, 443, 329–331, doi: 10.1038/nature05168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Visser, P.N.A.M. (1999). Gravity field determination with GOCE and GRACE, Adv. Space Res., 23(4), 771–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Visser, P.N.A.M. and E.J.O. Schrama (2005). Space-borne gravimetry: how to decouple the different gravity field constituents? In: Jekeli, C., et al. (eds), Gravity, geoid and space missions, vol. 129 of International Association of Geodesy Symposia. pp. 6–11, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 6–11.Google Scholar
  18. Wahr, J., S. Swenson, and I. Velicogna (2006), Accuracy of GRACE mass estimates, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(L06401), doi: 10.1029/2005GL025305.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems (DEOS), Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations