Error Assessment of Thermospheric Mass Density Retrieval With POD Products Using Different Strategies During Solar Minimum
With the proliferation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites carrying GNSS receivers on‐board commercial operators such as Spire, Starlink, OneWeb, and Amazon, an abundance of high‐cadence tracking data could become available to the scientific community. While GNSS measurements from geodetic‐grade rec...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Space Weather 2024-09, Vol.22 (9), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Space Weather |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Ray, Vishal Thayer, Jeffrey Sutton, Eric K. Waldron, Zachary |
description | With the proliferation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites carrying GNSS receivers on‐board commercial operators such as Spire, Starlink, OneWeb, and Amazon, an abundance of high‐cadence tracking data could become available to the scientific community. While GNSS measurements from geodetic‐grade receivers on satellites like SWARM, CHAMP, GRACE, and GOCE have been extensively used for atmospheric density retrieval, limited research has explored the potential of less accurate data from commercial operators. This study focuses on two methods to estimate atmospheric densities from precision orbit determination (POD) products—precise positions and velocities—utilizing synthetic data sets. The first method, termed “POD accelerometry” treats the POD products as measurements to a reduced‐dynamic POD scheme with the goal of estimating densities using stochastic parameters. The second method known as the energy dissipation rate (EDR) approach derives densities from changes in orbital energy. The relative contributions of various error sources—dynamics model uncertainties, and POD noise—to the estimated densities are studied for a limited set of orbital regimes and space weather activity, and possible error mitigation strategies are suggested. The performance of the two methods and their sensitivities to these various error sources are compared for circular orbits in the altitude regime 300–800 km during solar minimum F10.7=72.5 $\left({F}_{10.7}=72.5\right)$. EDR and POD accelerometry have comparable performances for high drag, low POD noise environments, whereas the latter performs considerably better in low drag 25 ${ >} 25$ cm) environments, with densities retrieved at higher cadences for the orbital regimes considered in this work during solar minimum.
Plain Language Summary
Low Earth orbit (LEO) Satellites orbit the Earth within its tenuous upper atmosphere. The uncertainties in the modeling of the atmospheric density lead to considerable errors in the prediction of satellite orbits that can have drastic consequences in the increasingly overcrowded LEO regime. Therefore, real‐time estimates of the upper atmospheric density are very beneficial in improving the predictive capability of atmospheric models. This research focuses on using tracking data from satellites equipped with GNSS receivers to estimate atmospheric densities in LEO. Specifically, the study analyzes two |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2023SW003585 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1029_2023SW003585</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A818637670</galeid><sourcerecordid>A818637670</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1571-8fc93d3cd113fda31f3e6a142ba0c0e1212a4fadc2a38c9d1e0f74b5c775efed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UMtuwjAQtKpWKqW99QP8AYX6keDkiIA-JBCoAXGMjL0GV0mM7NCKfn2N6IFTtYdZ7c6MRoPQIyV9Slj-zAjjxZoQnmbpFerQNGE9wXNyfbHforsQPglhScqSDvqZeO88HoYAIdTQtNgZvNyBr13YR7AKz2QIeAxNsO0Rf0DrLXzJCq9tu8OL-RgvvNMH1Qa8CrbZ4rE1BvzJqWi9bGFrIcoP_vQrXCU9ntnG1of6Ht0YWQV4-MMuWr1MlqO33nT--j4aTnuKpoL2MqNyrrnSlHKjJaeGw0DShG0kUQQoo0wmRmrFJM9UrikQI5JNqoRIwYDmXdQ_-25lBaVtjIu5VBwNtVWuAWPjfZjRbMDFQJAoeDoLlHcheDDl3tta-mNJSXkqurwsOtLZmf4dfY7_cstiPWFUCMp_ATtygXU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Error Assessment of Thermospheric Mass Density Retrieval With POD Products Using Different Strategies During Solar Minimum</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Ray, Vishal ; Thayer, Jeffrey ; Sutton, Eric K. ; Waldron, Zachary</creator><creatorcontrib>Ray, Vishal ; Thayer, Jeffrey ; Sutton, Eric K. ; Waldron, Zachary</creatorcontrib><description>With the proliferation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites carrying GNSS receivers on‐board commercial operators such as Spire, Starlink, OneWeb, and Amazon, an abundance of high‐cadence tracking data could become available to the scientific community. While GNSS measurements from geodetic‐grade receivers on satellites like SWARM, CHAMP, GRACE, and GOCE have been extensively used for atmospheric density retrieval, limited research has explored the potential of less accurate data from commercial operators. This study focuses on two methods to estimate atmospheric densities from precision orbit determination (POD) products—precise positions and velocities—utilizing synthetic data sets. The first method, termed “POD accelerometry” treats the POD products as measurements to a reduced‐dynamic POD scheme with the goal of estimating densities using stochastic parameters. The second method known as the energy dissipation rate (EDR) approach derives densities from changes in orbital energy. The relative contributions of various error sources—dynamics model uncertainties, and POD noise—to the estimated densities are studied for a limited set of orbital regimes and space weather activity, and possible error mitigation strategies are suggested. The performance of the two methods and their sensitivities to these various error sources are compared for circular orbits in the altitude regime 300–800 km during solar minimum F10.7=72.5 $\left({F}_{10.7}=72.5\right)$. EDR and POD accelerometry have comparable performances for high drag, low POD noise environments, whereas the latter performs considerably better in low drag <10−6m/s2 $\left(< 1{0}^{-6}\ \mathrm{m}/{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{2}}\right)$, high POD noise (>25 ${ >} 25$ cm) environments, with densities retrieved at higher cadences for the orbital regimes considered in this work during solar minimum.
Plain Language Summary
Low Earth orbit (LEO) Satellites orbit the Earth within its tenuous upper atmosphere. The uncertainties in the modeling of the atmospheric density lead to considerable errors in the prediction of satellite orbits that can have drastic consequences in the increasingly overcrowded LEO regime. Therefore, real‐time estimates of the upper atmospheric density are very beneficial in improving the predictive capability of atmospheric models. This research focuses on using tracking data from satellites equipped with GNSS receivers to estimate atmospheric densities in LEO. Specifically, the study analyzes two methods that derive density estimates from precision orbit determination (POD) products. The research examines the impact of different error sources on the accuracy of density estimates during quiescent conditions in solar minimum. Strategies to mitigate these errors are also suggested. Overall, this research contributes to understanding the effectiveness of different methods for deriving atmospheric densities from POD products obtained from GNSS‐equipped satellites in LEO for the nominal space weather conditions considered here. It highlights the importance of considering various error sources and provides the reader with the trade‐offs in selecting a method to estimate atmospheric densities from tracking data in different operational conditions for circular satellite orbits during solar minimum.
Key Points
Precision orbit determination (POD) accelerometry and energy dissipation rate (EDR) are evaluated for density retrieval in 300–800 km at solar minimum, assessing performance, and error sensitivity
POD accelerometry enables better handling of dynamical errors and excels in low‐drag, high‐noise environments
EDR proves to be a viable option in high‐drag environments and low POD uncertainties</description><identifier>ISSN: 1542-7390</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1542-7390</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2023SW003585</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>atmospheric density retrieval ; commercial satellite constellations ; energy dissipation rate ; error analysis ; GNSS data ; precise orbit determination</subject><ispartof>Space Weather, 2024-09, Vol.22 (9), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2024. The Author(s).</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1571-8fc93d3cd113fda31f3e6a142ba0c0e1212a4fadc2a38c9d1e0f74b5c775efed3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7127-8251 ; 0000-0003-1706-7730 ; 0000-0003-1424-7189 ; 0000-0001-6880-891X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2023SW003585$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2023SW003585$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ray, Vishal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thayer, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Eric K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waldron, Zachary</creatorcontrib><title>Error Assessment of Thermospheric Mass Density Retrieval With POD Products Using Different Strategies During Solar Minimum</title><title>Space Weather</title><description>With the proliferation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites carrying GNSS receivers on‐board commercial operators such as Spire, Starlink, OneWeb, and Amazon, an abundance of high‐cadence tracking data could become available to the scientific community. While GNSS measurements from geodetic‐grade receivers on satellites like SWARM, CHAMP, GRACE, and GOCE have been extensively used for atmospheric density retrieval, limited research has explored the potential of less accurate data from commercial operators. This study focuses on two methods to estimate atmospheric densities from precision orbit determination (POD) products—precise positions and velocities—utilizing synthetic data sets. The first method, termed “POD accelerometry” treats the POD products as measurements to a reduced‐dynamic POD scheme with the goal of estimating densities using stochastic parameters. The second method known as the energy dissipation rate (EDR) approach derives densities from changes in orbital energy. The relative contributions of various error sources—dynamics model uncertainties, and POD noise—to the estimated densities are studied for a limited set of orbital regimes and space weather activity, and possible error mitigation strategies are suggested. The performance of the two methods and their sensitivities to these various error sources are compared for circular orbits in the altitude regime 300–800 km during solar minimum F10.7=72.5 $\left({F}_{10.7}=72.5\right)$. EDR and POD accelerometry have comparable performances for high drag, low POD noise environments, whereas the latter performs considerably better in low drag <10−6m/s2 $\left(< 1{0}^{-6}\ \mathrm{m}/{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{2}}\right)$, high POD noise (>25 ${ >} 25$ cm) environments, with densities retrieved at higher cadences for the orbital regimes considered in this work during solar minimum.
Plain Language Summary
Low Earth orbit (LEO) Satellites orbit the Earth within its tenuous upper atmosphere. The uncertainties in the modeling of the atmospheric density lead to considerable errors in the prediction of satellite orbits that can have drastic consequences in the increasingly overcrowded LEO regime. Therefore, real‐time estimates of the upper atmospheric density are very beneficial in improving the predictive capability of atmospheric models. This research focuses on using tracking data from satellites equipped with GNSS receivers to estimate atmospheric densities in LEO. Specifically, the study analyzes two methods that derive density estimates from precision orbit determination (POD) products. The research examines the impact of different error sources on the accuracy of density estimates during quiescent conditions in solar minimum. Strategies to mitigate these errors are also suggested. Overall, this research contributes to understanding the effectiveness of different methods for deriving atmospheric densities from POD products obtained from GNSS‐equipped satellites in LEO for the nominal space weather conditions considered here. It highlights the importance of considering various error sources and provides the reader with the trade‐offs in selecting a method to estimate atmospheric densities from tracking data in different operational conditions for circular satellite orbits during solar minimum.
Key Points
Precision orbit determination (POD) accelerometry and energy dissipation rate (EDR) are evaluated for density retrieval in 300–800 km at solar minimum, assessing performance, and error sensitivity
POD accelerometry enables better handling of dynamical errors and excels in low‐drag, high‐noise environments
EDR proves to be a viable option in high‐drag environments and low POD uncertainties</description><subject>atmospheric density retrieval</subject><subject>commercial satellite constellations</subject><subject>energy dissipation rate</subject><subject>error analysis</subject><subject>GNSS data</subject><subject>precise orbit determination</subject><issn>1542-7390</issn><issn>1542-7390</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UMtuwjAQtKpWKqW99QP8AYX6keDkiIA-JBCoAXGMjL0GV0mM7NCKfn2N6IFTtYdZ7c6MRoPQIyV9Slj-zAjjxZoQnmbpFerQNGE9wXNyfbHforsQPglhScqSDvqZeO88HoYAIdTQtNgZvNyBr13YR7AKz2QIeAxNsO0Rf0DrLXzJCq9tu8OL-RgvvNMH1Qa8CrbZ4rE1BvzJqWi9bGFrIcoP_vQrXCU9ntnG1of6Ht0YWQV4-MMuWr1MlqO33nT--j4aTnuKpoL2MqNyrrnSlHKjJaeGw0DShG0kUQQoo0wmRmrFJM9UrikQI5JNqoRIwYDmXdQ_-25lBaVtjIu5VBwNtVWuAWPjfZjRbMDFQJAoeDoLlHcheDDl3tta-mNJSXkqurwsOtLZmf4dfY7_cstiPWFUCMp_ATtygXU</recordid><startdate>202409</startdate><enddate>202409</enddate><creator>Ray, Vishal</creator><creator>Thayer, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Sutton, Eric K.</creator><creator>Waldron, Zachary</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IAO</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7127-8251</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1706-7730</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1424-7189</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6880-891X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202409</creationdate><title>Error Assessment of Thermospheric Mass Density Retrieval With POD Products Using Different Strategies During Solar Minimum</title><author>Ray, Vishal ; Thayer, Jeffrey ; Sutton, Eric K. ; Waldron, Zachary</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1571-8fc93d3cd113fda31f3e6a142ba0c0e1212a4fadc2a38c9d1e0f74b5c775efed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>atmospheric density retrieval</topic><topic>commercial satellite constellations</topic><topic>energy dissipation rate</topic><topic>error analysis</topic><topic>GNSS data</topic><topic>precise orbit determination</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ray, Vishal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thayer, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Eric K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waldron, Zachary</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><jtitle>Space Weather</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ray, Vishal</au><au>Thayer, Jeffrey</au><au>Sutton, Eric K.</au><au>Waldron, Zachary</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Error Assessment of Thermospheric Mass Density Retrieval With POD Products Using Different Strategies During Solar Minimum</atitle><jtitle>Space Weather</jtitle><date>2024-09</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>9</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1542-7390</issn><eissn>1542-7390</eissn><abstract>With the proliferation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites carrying GNSS receivers on‐board commercial operators such as Spire, Starlink, OneWeb, and Amazon, an abundance of high‐cadence tracking data could become available to the scientific community. While GNSS measurements from geodetic‐grade receivers on satellites like SWARM, CHAMP, GRACE, and GOCE have been extensively used for atmospheric density retrieval, limited research has explored the potential of less accurate data from commercial operators. This study focuses on two methods to estimate atmospheric densities from precision orbit determination (POD) products—precise positions and velocities—utilizing synthetic data sets. The first method, termed “POD accelerometry” treats the POD products as measurements to a reduced‐dynamic POD scheme with the goal of estimating densities using stochastic parameters. The second method known as the energy dissipation rate (EDR) approach derives densities from changes in orbital energy. The relative contributions of various error sources—dynamics model uncertainties, and POD noise—to the estimated densities are studied for a limited set of orbital regimes and space weather activity, and possible error mitigation strategies are suggested. The performance of the two methods and their sensitivities to these various error sources are compared for circular orbits in the altitude regime 300–800 km during solar minimum F10.7=72.5 $\left({F}_{10.7}=72.5\right)$. EDR and POD accelerometry have comparable performances for high drag, low POD noise environments, whereas the latter performs considerably better in low drag <10−6m/s2 $\left(< 1{0}^{-6}\ \mathrm{m}/{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{2}}\right)$, high POD noise (>25 ${ >} 25$ cm) environments, with densities retrieved at higher cadences for the orbital regimes considered in this work during solar minimum.
Plain Language Summary
Low Earth orbit (LEO) Satellites orbit the Earth within its tenuous upper atmosphere. The uncertainties in the modeling of the atmospheric density lead to considerable errors in the prediction of satellite orbits that can have drastic consequences in the increasingly overcrowded LEO regime. Therefore, real‐time estimates of the upper atmospheric density are very beneficial in improving the predictive capability of atmospheric models. This research focuses on using tracking data from satellites equipped with GNSS receivers to estimate atmospheric densities in LEO. Specifically, the study analyzes two methods that derive density estimates from precision orbit determination (POD) products. The research examines the impact of different error sources on the accuracy of density estimates during quiescent conditions in solar minimum. Strategies to mitigate these errors are also suggested. Overall, this research contributes to understanding the effectiveness of different methods for deriving atmospheric densities from POD products obtained from GNSS‐equipped satellites in LEO for the nominal space weather conditions considered here. It highlights the importance of considering various error sources and provides the reader with the trade‐offs in selecting a method to estimate atmospheric densities from tracking data in different operational conditions for circular satellite orbits during solar minimum.
Key Points
Precision orbit determination (POD) accelerometry and energy dissipation rate (EDR) are evaluated for density retrieval in 300–800 km at solar minimum, assessing performance, and error sensitivity
POD accelerometry enables better handling of dynamical errors and excels in low‐drag, high‐noise environments
EDR proves to be a viable option in high‐drag environments and low POD uncertainties</abstract><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1029/2023SW003585</doi><tpages>25</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7127-8251</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1706-7730</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1424-7189</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6880-891X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1542-7390 |
ispartof | Space Weather, 2024-09, Vol.22 (9), p.n/a |
issn | 1542-7390 1542-7390 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1029_2023SW003585 |
source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; Wiley Online Library Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | atmospheric density retrieval commercial satellite constellations energy dissipation rate error analysis GNSS data precise orbit determination |
title | Error Assessment of Thermospheric Mass Density Retrieval With POD Products Using Different Strategies During Solar Minimum |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T08%3A04%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Error%20Assessment%20of%20Thermospheric%20Mass%20Density%20Retrieval%20With%20POD%20Products%20Using%20Different%20Strategies%20During%20Solar%20Minimum&rft.jtitle=Space%20Weather&rft.au=Ray,%20Vishal&rft.date=2024-09&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=9&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1542-7390&rft.eissn=1542-7390&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2023SW003585&rft_dat=%3Cgale_cross%3EA818637670%3C/gale_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A818637670&rfr_iscdi=true |