1 / 12

WHY DOES THE IGS CARE ABOUT EOPs?

Summary of core products of the International GNSS Service (IGS) Ultra-Rapid (real-time), Rapid, & Final series outputs: orbits, polar motion/LOD, clocks, & station positions Ultra-Rapid products very widely used for many demanding real-time applications

caine
Download Presentation

WHY DOES THE IGS CARE ABOUT EOPs?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Summary of core products of the International GNSS • Service (IGS) • Ultra-Rapid (real-time), Rapid, & Final series • outputs: orbits, polar motion/LOD, clocks, & station positions • Ultra-Rapidproductsverywidelyused for many • demanding real-time applications • e.g., very rapid tropo water vapor soundings for meteo models • & natural hazards monitoring • Ultra-Rapidproductqualitydepends on EOP • predictionaccuracy • latest observed orbits projected into future with EOP predictions • EOP prediction errors limit accuracy of IGS real-time orbits WHY DOES THE IGS CARE ABOUT EOPs? Jim Ray IGS Analysis Center Coordinator NOAA/National Geodetic Survey NGA Future EOP Prediction Workshop, Springfield, VA, 17 November 2011

  2. IGS aims for ~1 cm orbit & ~1 mm terrestrial accuracies • to satisfy most demanding mm-level user application requirements

  3. Rotational Transform: Observed EOPs(t) Observed orbit: Crust-fixed frame Observed orbit: Inertial frame 1) • Errors in obs EOPs ~ cancel out in forward/reverse transforms • but EOP prediction errors fully embedded in crust-fixed orbit predictions • typical prediction errors: ~0.4 mas/d for PM; 0.1 ms/d = 1.5 mas/d for UT1 • 0.1 ms = 1.5 mas = 4.6 cm @ Earth = 19.4 cm @ GPS + Projected orbit: Inertial frame Observed orbit: Inertial frame 2) Rotational Transform: Observed + Predicted EOPs(t) Observed + Projected orbit: Crust-fixed frame 3)

  4. Ultra-Rapid AC Orbit Comparisons (over 48 hr) • Performance among Analysis Centers has become bimodal • SIO & USNO have been excluded for >2 year • AC quality is more uniform over first 6 hr of orbit predictions • biggest differences occur for 6 – 24 hr orbit predictions

  5. Some IGU AC Orbits Have Large Rotations • SIO & USNO have large Z rotational errors; also Y • CODE sometimes also has moderately large Z rotations • these AC rotations probably from poor orbit modeling, not EOP predictions 0.5 mas = 64 mm error @ GPS hgt

  6. Orbit errors double when prediction interval increases by x4 • IGA total err only ~40% worse than IGRs (but 175% worse for RZ)

  7. Z rotation errors are largest RT error – • from UT1 prediction errors • Largest RT orbit prediction error comes from UT1 predictions • IGA accuracy also limited by RZ rotations

  8. due to modelling of orbit dynamics • large X, Y rotation errors – from PM prediction errors • Next largest RT limits from orbit modelling (solar radiation pressure effects) & PM prediction errors

  9. EOP Error Sources • Station-related measurements: • thermal noise • instrumentation • propagation delays • multipath, etc • σStation ≈ 1/√NStation • Geophysical & parameter models: • esp near S1, • K1, K2 tidal • periods • AAM/OAM • errors • Source-related errors: • orbit dynamics • (GPS, SLR, DORIS) • quasar structures • (VLBI) • σSource ≈ 1/√NSource σEOP = + + Possible improvements: • new subdaily EOP • tide model ? • better handling of • parameter • constraints ? • modern theory of • Earth rotation ? • more robust SLR, • VLBI networks ? • more stable site • installations ? • near asymptotic limit • for GPS already • new GNSS • constellations • better GNSS orbit • models ? • quasar structure • models (VLBI) ?  Multi-technique EOP combinations mostly sub-optimal ! 

  10. Conclusions • Generally, IGA/IGU near- & real-time orbits & EOPs are of very high quality • could use more & better input Analysis Center solutions • Rotations are leading real-time orbit error • due to UT1 & PM prediction errors used for IGU orbits • models for orbit dynamics also add some rotational errors for some ACs • EOP services could better use IGU products • provide updates at least 4 times daily • seek better input AAM + OAM predictions • improve combination algorithms • present IERS predictions generally not adequate for IGS requirements • IGS ACs generate better 1-day PM predictions internally from their own latest measurements; we cannot do that for UT1 though • Better model for subdaily tidal EOP variations also needed • errors of IERS model alias into GPS orbit parameters

More Related