Abstract
Abstract. Ultra-sensitive space-borne accelerometers on board of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites are used to measure non-gravitational forces acting on the surface of these satellites. These forces consist of the Earth radiation pressure, the solar radiation pressure and the atmospheric drag, where the first two are caused by the radiation emitted from the Earth and the Sun, respectively, and the latter is related to the thermospheric density. On-board accelerometer measurements contain systematic errors, which need to be mitigated by applying a calibration before their use in gravity recovery or thermospheric neutral density estimations. Therefore, we improve, apply and compare three calibration procedures: (1) a multi-step numerical estimation approach, which is based on the numerical differentiation of the kinematic orbits of LEO satellites; (2) a calibration of accelerometer observations within the dynamic precise orbit determination procedure and (3) a comparison of observed to modeled forces acting on the surface of LEO satellites. Here, accelerometer measurements obtained by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) are used. Time series of bias and scale factor derived from the three calibration procedures are found to be different in timescales of a few days to months. Results are more similar (statistically significant) when considering longer timescales, from which the results of approach (1) and (2) show better agreement to those of approach (3) during medium and high solar activity. Calibrated accelerometer observations are then applied to estimate thermospheric neutral densities. Differences between accelerometer-based density estimations and those from empirical neutral density models, e.g., NRLMSISE-00, are observed to be significant during quiet periods, on average 22 % of the simulated densities (during low solar activity), and up to 28 % during high solar activity. Therefore, daily corrections are estimated for neutral densities derived from NRLMSISE-00. Our results indicate that these corrections improve model-based density simulations in order to provide density estimates at locations outside the vicinity of the GRACE satellites, in particular during the period of high solar/magnetic activity, e.g., during the St. Patrick's Day storm on 17 March 2015.
Highlights
Recent gravimetric satellites, for example the satellite missions CHAllenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP; Reigber et al, 2002) or Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE; Tapley et al, 2004), are equipped with ultrasensitive space-borne accelerometers that allow for the measurement of non-gravitational forces acting on the surface of these satellites
We improve, apply and compare three calibration procedures: (1) a multi-step numerical estimation approach, which is based on the numerical differentiation of the kinematic orbits of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites; (2) a calibration of accelerometer observations within the dynamic precise orbit determination procedure and (3) a comparison of observed to modeled forces acting on the surface of LEO satellites
We use the scales derived from the dynamic estimation (DE), since thecorrelation dominates especially in the multi-step numerical estimation (MNE) and the empirical model approach (EMA) causing unrealistic scales not close to 1, most pronounced in the cross-track and radial directions
Summary
For example the satellite missions CHAllenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP; Reigber et al, 2002) or Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE; Tapley et al, 2004), are equipped with ultrasensitive space-borne accelerometers that allow for the measurement of non-gravitational forces acting on the surface of these satellites These measurements reflect accelerations due to the atmospheric drag (the dominant component of the acceleration vector at the orbital altitude of these satellites), and enable studies of thermospheric neutral density and winds (e.g., Bruinsma et al, 2004; Liu et al, 2005; Sutton et al, 2007; Doornbos, 2012; Lei et al, 2012; Mehta et al, 2017). Each method mentioned above yields different calibration parameters and their uncertainty, and their influence on the final products such as thermospheric neutral density estimation has not yet been systematically investigated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
