From: Henno.Boomkamp@esa.int To: igsleo@igscb.jpl.nasa.gov cc: Da Kuang Message-ID: <41256B1A.0037C1C1.00@esoc.esa.de> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:05:26 +0100 Subject: [IGSLEO-31] Discussion on CHAMP slr results Sender: owner-igsleo Precedence: bulk ****************************************************************************** IGS LEO Mail 06 Dec 02:05:49 PST 2001 Message Number 31 ****************************************************************************** Author: Henno Boomkamp Dear Da, Thank you for you comments. I send this reply through the IGS LEO list because it will probably be of interest to others as well, and it avoids repetitions. You are of course right about the factor 2 in the RMS formula, this is a mistake. I had in fact done a similar geometrical analysis to yours, but to me it seemed that the assumptions are a bit dangerous, and a value like sqrt(2) or sqrt(3) is too theoretical. This is why I prefer to simply derive the factor from the observed outcome of the orbit comparisons and the SLR data, rather than anything else (I shouldn't make mistakes in the process, but that is another matter...). In particular, I have two comments on your analysis. First, it is not sufficiently realistic to assume a uniform distribution over 0..360 degrees. Unless the POD process is purely geometrical, the orbit error tends to be dominated by the along-track and cross-track components, i.e. is not uniformly distributed through a 360 degree sphere around the satellite. At the same time, the vast majority of SLR observations take place through a ring-like shape around the ground station, with nothing below the cut-off elevation of 5 degrees and hardly anything above 70 deg. The cross-track and along-track errors are the largest errors, but will typically have angles with respect to the line of sight that are closer to 90 deg than to 0. As a result, the average of the squares of cos(a) in your analysis will be less than 0.50, and its inverse must be higher than sqrt(2). Second, I don't think we can use differences in reference frames as a valid argument for reducing the scale factor to a value closer to sqrt(2), as much as we would like to. All orbits are essentially based on the same GPS data, which puts all orbits in the same reference frame (= IGS). The sp3 comparison program estimates a 7-parameter transform, and none of the comparisons actually showed substantial reference frame differences. Also, the SLR data itself does not really introduce reference frame errors due to the excellent collocation of the IERS and IGS reference frames. Any absorbed reference frame inconsistencies must be considered to be at mm level at most. I will repeat the computations without the factor 2 in the RMS(A,B) expression. In the end I think that the resulting scale factor of 1.646 is quite realistic, and that a value near sqrt(2) would be too optimistic. There is of course a nice way to calibrate the scale factor, which I will also put on the web page: - With the SLR-based estimated orbit error for each solution, we construct pairwise RMS values for each orbit pair - i.e. sqrt(RMS1^2 + RMS2^2) (...no factor 2...). - This pairwise RMS can be compared to the actual RMS found for each pair. - If all values are consistently too large in comparison to the actual orbit differences, we can correct the scale factor accordingly. This will only move the absolute values of all estimated orbit errors, without affecting their relative values. Best regards, Henno |--------+-----------------------> | | Da Kuang | | | | | | | | | 06.12.01 | | | 05:03 | | | | |--------+-----------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Henno Boomkamp/esoc/ESA@ESA | | cc: tom.yunck@jpl.nasa.gov, yeb@cobra.JPL.NASA.GOV, | | dxk@cobra.JPL.NASA.GOV | | Subject: Re: [IGSLEO-30] CHAMP SLR results | >----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Dear Henno, Thank you very much for your good work on making all the orbit comparison and web page. After reading the new SLR results, I have some opinion about the use of scale factor and would like to discuss with you. But first let me clarify that in generating JPL's orbit solution, there is no laser data been used, so your last explanation for the low ratio on JPL/NCL pair does not apply. We did compute our own SLR residual for our orbit solution, with available SLR data from CDDIS. Our result RMS is 11.1 cm, close to your result of one-way RMS of 11.6 cm. Now the question comes to how to interpret this number to represent "orbit error". I think your scale factor of 2.327 is too large, at least by a factor of sqrt(2), I'll explain it later. One can come up with different scale factors. For example, one can argue that SLR residual RMS is more or less one-dimensional error measure, so a factor of sqrt(3) should be applied to get the "3D orbit error RMS". A little more detailed analysis can reason like this: Let the SLR residual is dl, and the 3D orbit error is dr, then dl = dr * cos(a) where a is the angle between the 3D orbit error vector and the SLR line of sight, since the dl is the projection of orbit error vector on line of sight. Now the RMS RMS_dl = sqrt( sum[dl^2]/N ) = sqrt( sum[dr^2*cos(a)^2]/N ) where sum[ ] is the summation of the quantities inside [ ] up to N. Assume the angle a is uniformly distributed over 0-360 degree, the average value of cos(a)^2 over the region will be 1/2. So RMS_dl ~= sqrt(0.5 * sum[dr^2] /N ) = sqrt(0.5) * RMS_dr or RMS_dr ~= sqrt(2) * RMS_dl thus we get the scale factor of sqrt(2) to convert SLR residual RMS to "3D orbit error RMS". You get the scale factor by comparing the orbit difference RMS with the SLR residual RMS, but you mistakenly divided a factor sqrt(2) in the relation between the orbit difference RMS and individual orbit error RMS, probably mixed up with averaged orbit RMS. The RMS of difference between orbit A and orbit B should be RMS_A,B = sqrt( RMS_A^2 + RMS_B^2) With this corrected, your scale factor should be 2.327 / sqrt(2) = 1.646 this is between sqrt(3) = 1.732 and sqrt(2) = 1.414. So the bottom line is, with your corrected factor, the JPL "3D orbit error RMS" is 1.646 * 11.6 = 19.1 cm The factor 1.646 still may be a little too high. Personally I think sqrt(2) is a better choice. The factor derived from the orbit difference includes those kinds of error sources such as reference frame difference between orbit solution A and solution B, which should not be applied to the SLR residual RMS, since the orbit error of one solution has nothing to do with what reference frame other solutions use. If we use the scale factor of sqrt(2), then the "3D orbit error RMS" of JPL solution is 1.414 * 11.6 = 16.4 cm the corresponding "average one-dimensional orbit error RMS", which has been used by IGS orbit evaluation, is 16.4 / sqrt(3) = 9.5 cm The choice of scale factor affects every one equally, the sqrt(2) is not in favour of any particular solution, but in my opinion it is a more realistic one. I'll be glad to hear more opinion on this. Best regards, Da >****************************************************************************** >IGS LEO Mail 05 Dec 09:46:41 PST 2001 Message Number 30 >****************************************************************************** > >Author: Henno Boomkamp > >Dear colleagues, > >Within the framework of the CHAMP orbit comparison campaign, >ESOC has set up an SLR processing line as an independent >check to the contributed solutions. Please have a look at our >new webpage, http://nng.esoc.esa.de/gps/slr.html . >The further results of the comparison campaign can be found >at http://nng.esoc.esa.de/gps/campaign.html . > >Those of you who have promised their own contributions to the >CHAMP orbit campaign, please put in an effort to provide your >orbits before the christmas period. All analysis presented on >the above webpages will be extended to include your orbits, >and every additional solution will help to consolidate the overall >campaign results. > >For any questions or comments do not hesitate to contact me. > >Best regards, > >Henno Boomkamp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Da KUANG Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mail Stop 238-600 | Phone: (818)354-8332 4800 Oak Grove Drive | Fax: (818)393-4965 Pasadena, CA 91109-8099 | E-mail: Da.Kuang@jpl.nasa.gov