Abstract

Precise knowledge of the phase center location of the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna is a prerequisite for precise orbit determination (POD) of the low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite. The phase center offset (PCO) and phase center variation (PCV) values for the LEO antenna obtained from ground calibration cannot reflect the error sources encountered in the actual spacecraft environment. PCV corrections are estimated by ionosphere free (IF) carrier phase post-fit residuals of reduced dynamic orbit determination. Ambiguity resolution (AR) plays a crucial role in achieving the best orbit accuracy. The single receiver AR concept is realized using wide-lane (WL) and narrow-lane (NL) bias products. Single difference (SD) observations between satellites are applied to remove the receiver dependent phase bias. SD AR and traditional double difference (DD) AR methods are applied to fix the ambiguities. The recovered SD and DD IF ambiguities are taken as pseudo-observations to constrain the undifferenced IF ambiguity parameters in the POD process. The LEO orbits based on float ambiguity (FA), SD, AR, and DD AR are investigated. One year’s data collected by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment Follow-On (GRACE-FO) mission and GPS precise products provided by the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE) were analyzed. Precise orbit generated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), independent satellite laser ranging (SLR), and K-band ranging (KBR) measurements were utilized to assess the orbit accuracy. More than 98% of SD WL and 95% of SD NL ambiguities are fixed, which confirms the good quality of the bias products and correctness of the SD AR method. With PCV corrections, the average phase residuals of DD and SD AR solutions are 0.13 and 0.41 mm, which indicates improved consistency between applied models and observations. Compared with JPL’s orbit, the SD AR orbits achieve the accuracy of 6.0, 6.2, and 5.1 mm in along-track, cross-track, and radial directions. The SD AR solutions show an average improvement of 18.3% related to the FA orbits while 6.3% is gained by the DD AR approach. The root mean squares (RMSs) of SLR residuals for FA, DD AR, and SD AR solutions are 11.5, 10.2, and 9.6 mm, which validate the positive effect of AR on POD. Standard deviation (STD) of KBR residuals for SD AR orbits is 1.8 mm while 0.9 mm is achieved by the DD AR method. The explanation is that the phase bias products used for SD AR are not free of errors and the errors may degrade the KBR validation. In-flight PCV calibration and ambiguity resolution improve the LEO orbit accuracy effectively.

Highlights

  • Introduction conditions of the Creative CommonsLow Earth orbit (LEO) satellites are considered as key technologies for space missions due to their advantages of flexibility, redundancy, efficiency, and low cost

  • Two kinds of phase center variation (PCV) maps are created—one is generated with the phase residuals from double difference (DD) Ambiguity resolution (AR) solution and the other is derived from the Single difference (SD) AR solution

  • Single receiver and double difference integer ambiguity resolution models are introduced in this contribution

Read more

Summary

Introduction conditions of the Creative Commons

Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites are considered as key technologies for space missions due to their advantages of flexibility, redundancy, efficiency, and low cost. Ambiguity resolution (AR) and in-flight antenna phase center variation (PCV) calibration are essential to fully exploit the precision of GPS observations for POD. Using the observation specific bias (OSB) products provided by the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE), AR is applied to the POD of GRACE and Sentinel-3 satellites [33]. Different AR solutions, including DD AR, single difference (SD) AR, and integrated SD and DD AR solutions are investigated with GRACE data to access their effects on orbit accuracy [35] Another factor affecting the orbit accuracy of the LEO satellite is the phase center position of the spaceborne GNSS antenna. Impacts of different ambiguity resolution strategies and in-flight PCV calibration on POD and PBD still need more investigation In this analysis, antenna PCV models of GRACE-FO satellites are developed to further exploit the POD accuracy.

POD Strategy
Background force models
Data Usage
Mathematical Models
Results
POD with Ambiguity Resolution
GNSS Observation Model
Single Receiver Ambiguity Resolution
Double Difference Ambiguity Resolution
Integer Ambiguity Validation
Ambiguity Resolution Results
Single Satellite Orbit Validation
Baseline Validation
Discussions
Conclusions

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.