Search

This paper discusses strategies to improve the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) monthly solutions computed at the Astronomical Institute of the University of Bern (AIUB) which are contributing to the Horizon 2020 project G3P – Global Gravity-based Groundwater Product. To improve the AIUB-GRACE gravity field solutions, we updated the use of the Level-1B observations, adapted the background models, and improved the processing strategies in terms of instrument screening and parameterization. We used the Release 3 K-band product (KBR) and star camera data (L1B RL03), and we adopted Release 6 of the Atmospheric and Ocean De-aliasing (AOD1B RL06) product. For the accelerometer parameterization, we used arc-wise full scale factor matrix and arc-wise third-order polynomial biases. The new accelerometer parameterization is effective in reducing noise over the oceans in gravity field solutions, especially for the late years of the GRACE mission when the thermal control was switched off. In this paper, we show that the outliers in the KBR antenna offset correction (AOC) are projected into the range rate residuals; therefore, we used the KBR AOC as the main source for outlier detection and eliminated the AOC above a threshold for all data before the gravity field processing. The full time series of GRACE AIUB-G3P gravity field solutions (Darbeheshti et al., 2023b) is available at https://doi.org/10.5880/ICGEM.2023.001.

In the framework of the COmbination Service for Time-variable Gravity fields (COST-G) gravity field solutions from different analysis centres are combined to provide a consolidated solution of improved quality and robustness to the user. As in many other satellite-related sciences, the correct application of background models plays a crucial role in gravity field determination. Therefore, we publish a set of data of various commonly used forces in orbit and gravity field modelling (Earth's gravity field, tides etc.) evaluated along a one day orbit arc of GRACE, together with auxiliary data to enable easy comparisons. The benchmark data is compiled with the GROOPS software by the Institute of Geodesy (IfG) at Graz University of Technology. It is intended to be used as a reference data set and provides the opportunity to test the implementation of these models at various institutions involved in orbit and gravity field determination from satellite tracking data. In view of the COST-G GRACE and GRACE Follow-On gravity field combinations, we document the outcome of the comparison of the background force models for the Bernese GNSS software from AIUB (Astronomical Institute, University of Bern), the EPOS software of the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ), the GINS software, developed and maintained by the Groupe de Recherche de Géodésie Spatiale (GRGS), the GRACE-SIGMA software of the Leibniz University of Hannover (LUH) and the GRASP software also developed at LUH. We consider differences in the force modelling for GRACE (-FO) which are one order of magnitude smaller than the accelerometer noise of about 10−10 m s−2 to be negligible and formulate this as a benchmark for new analysis centres, which are interested to contribute to the COST-G initiative.

Gravity field models may be derived from kinematic orbit positions of Low Earth Orbiting satellites equipped with onboard GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers. An accurate description of the stochastic behaviour of the kinematic positions plays a key role to calculate high quality gravity field solutions. In the Celestial Mechanics Approach (CMA) kinematic positions are used as pseudo-observations to estimate orbit parameters and gravity field coefficients simultaneously. So far, a simplified stochastic model based on epoch-wise covariance information, which may be efficiently derived in the kinematic point positioning process, has been applied. We extend this model by using the fully populated covariance matrix, covering correlations over 50 min. As white noise is generally assumed for the original GPS carrier phase observations, this purely formal variance propagation cannot describe the full noise characteristics introduced by the original observations. Therefore, we sophisticate our model by deriving empirical covariances from the residuals of an orbit fit of the kinematic positions. We process GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) GPS data of April 2007 to derive gravity field solutions up to degree and order 70. Two different orbit parametrisations, a purely dynamic orbit and a reduced-dynamic orbit with constrained piecewise constant accelerations, are adopted. The resulting gravity fields are solved on a monthly basis using daily orbital arcs. Extending the stochastic model from utilising epoch-wise covariance information to an empirical model, leads to a – expressed in terms of formal errors – more realistic gravity field solution.

The core satellite of the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission provides precipitation observations measured with the Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR). The precipitation can only be estimated from the radar data, and therefore independent validations using direct precipitation measurements on the ground as a true reference need to be performed. Moreover, the quality and the accuracy of satellite observational data depend on various influencing factors, such as altitude, topography and rainfall type. In this way, a validation may help to minimise those uncertainties. The DPR Level 2 algorithms provide three different sets of radar rain rate estimates: Ku-band-only rain rates, Ka-band-only rain rates, and a product using both the Ku and Ka band. This study presents an evaluation of the three GPM-DPR surface precipitation estimates based on the gridded precipitation data of the WegenerNet, a local-scale terrestrial network of 153 meteorological stations in southeastern Austria. The validation is based on graphical and statistical approaches, using only data where both Ku- and Ka-band measurements are available. The focus lies on the resemblance of the rainfall variability within the whole network and the over- and underestimation of the precipitation through the GPM-DPR. The analysis rests upon 15 rainfall events observed by the GPM-DPR over the WegenerNet in the last 4 years; the meteorological winter is excluded due to technical challenges of snow measurements. The WegenerNet provides between 8 and 12 gauges within each GPM-DPR footprint. Its biases are well studied and corrected; thus, it can be taken as a robust ground reference. This work also includes considerations on the limits of such comparisons between small terrestrial networks with a high density of stations and precipitation observations from a satellite. Our results show that the GPM-DPR estimates basically match with the WegenerNet measurements, but absolute quantities are biased. The three types of radar estimates deliver similar results, where Ku-band and dual-frequency estimates are very close to each other. On a general level, Ka-band precipitation estimates deliver better results due to their greater sensitivity to low rainfall rates.

Abstract Orbit determination of probes visiting Solar System bodies is currently the main source of our knowledge about their internal structure, inferred from the estimate of their gravity field and rotational state. Nongravitational forces acting on the spacecraft need to be accurately included in the dynamical modeling (either explicitly or in the form of empirical parameters) not to degrade the solution and its geophysical interpretation. In this study, we present our recovery of NASA GRAIL orbits and our lunar gravity field solutions up to degree and order 350. We propose a systematic approach to select an optimal parametrization with empirical accelerations and pseudo‐stochastic pulses, by checking their impact against orbit overlaps or, in the case of GRAIL, the very precise inter‐satellite link. We discuss how parametrization choices may differ depending on whether the goal is limited to orbit reconstruction or if it also includes the solution of gravity field coefficients. We validate our setup for planetary geodesy by iterating extended lunar gravity field solutions from pre‐GRAIL gravity fields, and we discuss the impact of empirical parametrization on the interpretation of gravity solutions and of their error bars.