Abstract
AbstractInformation about satellite antenna phase center offsets (PCOs) is indispensable for high-precision applications of global navigation satellite systems. Pre-flight manufacturer calibrations of the PCOs are available for all individual Galileo satellites and each frequency. So far, geodetic usage of Galileo is focused on the ionosphere-free linear combination of the E1 and E5a signals. In view of the growing number of E5b- and E6-capable receivers and upcoming multi-frequency applications, the consistency of the PCO values for different frequencies becomes a topic of increasing importance. Galileo satellite antenna PCOs have been estimated from the ionosphere-free linear combinations of E1/E5a, E1/E5b, and E1/E6. The mean horizontal PCOs of the different frequencies agree on the few millimeter level. The X-PCOs show a bias of about 1 cm compared to the manufacturer calibrations, whereas the Y-PCOs are free of such a bias. The Z-PCOs have a systematic offset of $$-11$$
-
11
to $${-15}$$
-
15
cm w.r.t. the manufacturer calibrations due to scale inconsistencies of the current version of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF2020) and the manufacturer calibrations. The maximum Z-PCO difference between the various linear combinations amounts to 4 cm and provides a measure of the presently achieved consistency of ground and space antenna calibrations across different frequencies. This inconsistency would translate into height differences of about 1.6 mm and associated scale differences of the terrestrial reference frame of 0.25 ppb, when adjusting station coordinates with manufacturer calibrated Galileo PCOs for different frequency pairs.
Funder
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computers in Earth Sciences,Geochemistry and Petrology,Geophysics
Reference37 articles.
1. Altamimi Z, Rebischung P, Métivier L, Collilieux X (2016) ITRF2014: a new release of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame modeling nonlinear station motions. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 121(8):6109–6131. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013098
2. Altamimi Z, Rebischung P, Collilieux X, Métivier L, Chanard K (2022) ITRF2020: main results and key performance indicators. In: EGU General Assembly 2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-3958
3. Beutler G, Brockmann E, Gurtner W, Hugentobler U, Mervart L, Rothacher M, Verdun A (1994) Extended orbit modeling techniques at the CODE processing center of the international GPS service for geodynamics (IGS): theory and initial results. Manuscripta Geodaetica 19:367–386
4. Duan B, Hugentobler U, Montenbruck O, Steigenberger P (2023) Performance of Galileo satellite products determined from multi-frequency measurements. J Geod 97(4):32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-023-01723-3
5. Duong V, Harima K, Choy S, Laurichesse D, Rizos C (2019) An optimal linear combination model to accelerate PPP convergence using multi-frequency multi-GNSS measurements. GPS Solut 23(2):49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-019-0842-2
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献