1 / 31

Activities WP2420 Mission Architecture Supervision T. Reubelt, N. Sneeuw - GIS

Activities WP2420 Mission Architecture Supervision T. Reubelt, N. Sneeuw - GIS. New test cases. selection/discussion new test cases for laser/accelerometer noise new reference for laser noise full noise vs. laser-only noise for higher orbits SSO vs. polar orbit repeat-mode formations.

philipl
Download Presentation

Activities WP2420 Mission Architecture Supervision T. Reubelt, N. Sneeuw - GIS

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. Activities WP2420 • Mission Architecture Supervision • T. Reubelt, N. Sneeuw - GIS

  2. New test cases • selection/discussion • new test cases for laser/accelerometer noise • new reference for laser noise • full noise vs. laser-only noise for higher orbits • SSO vs. polar orbit • repeat-mode • formations

  3. New test cases • PSD of laser range error: • PSD of accelerometer error: • fixed parameters: ρ = 75 km, h = 350 km, I = 90°, T = 15 d

  4. New test cases • case 2 • nfloor = 2·10-11 m/s2/sqrt(Hz) • case 3 • nfloor = 5·10-11 m/s2/sqrt(Hz) • case 1 • nrel = 5·10-13 1/sqrt(Hz) • nfloor = 1·10-11 m/s2/sqrt(Hz) • η = 3

  5. New test cases • case 4 • nrel = (5/4)·10-13 1/sqrt(Hz) • case 5 • η = 2 • case 1 • nrel = 5·10-13 1/sqrt(Hz) • nfloor = 1·10-11 m/s2/sqrt(Hz) • η = 3

  6. New test cases • case 6 • η = 1 • case 7 • nfloor = 5·10-11 m/s2/sqrt(Hz) • η = 2 • case 1 • nrel = 5·10-13 1/sqrt(Hz) • nfloor = 1·10-11 m/s2/sqrt(Hz) • η = 3

  7. New test cases • Lmax = 100

  8. New test cases • results • largest improvements by • ● reduction of white noise level (nrel) of laser • ● reduction of exponent η of the (1/f)η noise part in the low frequency range f < 0.001 Hz from η = 3 to η = 1 (or 2) • → applied in the new reference (for ρ = 75 km)

  9. New reference for noise • PSD of laser range error: • PSD of accelerometer error: • fixed parameters: ρ = 75 km, h = 350 km, I = 90°, T = 15 d

  10. New reference for noise • old optimistic PSD • nrel = 5·10-13 1/sqrt(Hz) • nfloor = 1·10-11 m/s2/sqrt(Hz), η = 3 • new reference • nrel = 2.67·10-13 1/sqrt(Hz) • η = 2

  11. New reference for noise • Lmax = 100

  12. Laser noise only for different orbit heights • total noise (laser + accelerometer) vs. laser noise only • optimistic laser PSD , ρ = 100 km, • I = 89°, T = 15 d • Lmax = 100

  13. Laser noise only for different orbit heights • results • If accelerometer noise is regarded to be below laser noise, the degrees below l = 50 are improved (for the low orders up to 1 order of magnitude) • However, accelerometer noise can only be kept low for larger orbit heights (h > 500/600 km). This means, that the SH-errors rise rapidly for higher degrees, e.g. 1 order of magnitude for degree 50 and 2 orders of magnitude for degree 100

  14. sun-synchronous vs. polar orbit • groundtrack-coverage at poles • polar (I = 90°) • SSO (I = 97°) • near polar (I = 93°) • repeat orbit: / = 110/7

  15. sun-synchronous vs. polar orbit • aliasing periods for repeat orbit (/) = 110/7

  16. sun-synchronous vs. polar orbit • aliasing periods for repeat orbit (/) = 456/29

  17. sun-synchronous vs. polar orbit • SH/geoid-errors generated by different inclinations • polar • (I = 90°) • SSO • (I = 97°) • near polar • (I = 87°) • fixed parameters: • optimistic PSD, ρ = 100 km, • h = 300 km, T = 15 d

  18. sun-synchronous vs. polar orbit • pros and cons of polar, near polar and sunsynchronous orbits (1) • SSO leads to a data gap of 7° • → large distortion of geoid plots around poles and of • zonal/low order SH coefficients • → such problems are almost avoided by a near polar orbit • with I = 87°/93° • SSO (and also near polar orbit) leads to a more dense and homogeneous groundtrack pattern at the areas of interest for ice studies (Greenland, Antarctic shelves); large intersection angle between ascending and descending arcs, which might improve isotropy

  19. sun-synchronous vs. polar orbit • pros and cons of polar, near polar and sunsynchronous orbits (2) • polar orbit and SSO are problematic concerning aliasing periods of ocean tides: annual, semi-annual and very long periodic (infinite) aliasing periods occur, which might disturb signals of interest (hydrology, ice mass loss, …) • → near-polar orbits seems more suited, since such aliasing • periods are avoided • - most suited seem orbits with low inclination (e.g. TOPEX)

  20. repeat-mode sensitivity (for hydrology and static field) new reference Lstatic≈ 200-250 →  ≈ 200-500,  ≈ 14-34 Lhydro≈ 70-80 →  ≈ 70-160,  ≈ 5-10

  21. repeat-mode • repeat-orbit design • for hydrology an orbit with a low repeat cycle ( ≈ 70-160,  ≈ 5-10) seems to be suited • problem: sensitivity for static field up to L = 200-250 • → to avoid omission errors (spatial aliasing) a solution up to L = 200-250 is needed. Thus an orbit with denser groundtrack coverage leading to a larger repeat-cycle ( ≈ 200-500,  ≈ 14-34) is needed • solution? orbit with long repeat-cycle ( ≈ 30 days) for high spatial resolution and a subcycle of ≈ 7 days for temporal resolution of hydrology?

  22. repeat-mode • What is the best option for an orbit with a repeat cycle of ≈ 30 days: • ● skipping orbit with a (pseudo-) subcycle of ≈ 7days and a homogenous gap evolution • ● skipping orbit with a distince (≈)7 day subcycle (gap evolution less homogeneous) • ● skipping orbit with a very short subcycle (semi-drifting) • ● drifting orbit

  23. repeat-mode • skipping orbit with homogeneous gap evolution • / = 456/29, h = 333/346 km (polar/SSO), • SC = 11 days, pseudo SC = 3/11 days

  24. repeat-mode • skipping orbit with distinct, short subcycle and • no pseudo subcycles • / = 454/29, h = 353/366 km (polar/SSO) • SC = 3 days

  25. repeat-mode • almost drifting orbit (semi-drifting) • / = 450/29, h = 393/406 km (polar/SSO) • SC = 2 days

  26. repeat-mode • skipping orbit with 7-day subcycle and less pronounced pseudo-subcycles • / = 467/30, h = 379/391 km (polar/SSO) • SC = 7 days, pseudo SC = 2/5 days?

  27. repeat-mode • skipping orbit with 8-day subcycle and less pronounced pseudo-subcycles • / = 453/29, h = 363/376 km (polar/SSO) • SC = 8 days, pseudo SC = 3/5 days

  28. formations (error propagation) fixed parameters: (/) = 219/14 (h = 357 km), σρddot = 10-10 m/s²/sqrt(Hz) PENDULUM (60/60km) GRACE (75km) CARTWHEEL (50/100km) LISA (75km)

  29. formations (error propagation)

  30. formations (aliasing of hydrology) Echelon (GRACE) 20km / = 125/8 PENDULUM (20/10km) CARTWHEEL10/20km

  31. formations (aliasing of hydrology) • pros and cons of formations • PENDULUM, CARTWHEEL and LISA lead to lower formal errors due to a larger isotropy and sensitivity of the sensed gravity field signal • hydrological aliasing is less for PENDULUM and larger for GRACE and CARTWHEEL • → is PENDULUM the most valuable formation?

More Related