IGS Analysis Center Workshop - IGS - NASA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.2b Mean and RMS of the Helmert Transformation Parameters from theOriginal set.#ofOrb.DX(m)RMsDY(m)DZ(m)Rx(mas)RY(mas)Rz(mas)Scale(ppb)RMS(m)Center13.0-.006.004.000.004-.011.007-.26.09-.04.07.21.12.2.1.24.01COD13.0-.013.004.000.003-.025.005-.06.10.00.08-.05.11.5.1.16.01EMR13.0-.038.013-.009.013-.036.020.21.25.01.122.48.28.7.3.64.02ESA13.0.014.002.028.004.024.004.50.07-.26.101.06.24-.7.0.13.01GFZ13.0.008.004-.043.004-.016.005.11.08-.34.07-.07.19.5.1.22.03JPL13.0.001.006-.018.006,035.006-1.36.321.83.26-3.651.24-.3.1.34.01S10ESA has improved remarkably since the January, 1993 submission, this is visible for the 1993results. Dueto the problem with SIO orbits discussed above, those orbits were excluded from thiscombination. The most interesting difference between the two tables is the change in sigmas of themean values. They are significantly lower for the January test results, for the rotations in particular,but also the mean rotation differences between Centers have become smaller. Figures 2.5a and 2.5bclearly show this. In the two figures only the estimated X-axis rotations are shown. The Figure 2.5ais for the January test and the Figure 2.5b is for the originally submitted results. Only the Centersavailable in both sets are shown here. Notice the much larger scale for Figure 2.5b.From Tables 2,2a and 2.2b it can be seen that the reprocessing has primarily decreased the variationand differences of the rotations between the individual Centers. Consequently, due to the orbit-EOP correlation discussed above, it is expected that the EOP solutions have also improvedaccordingly for this test. The improvements seen here are mainly due to an improved coordinateset at the correct epoch (1993.06) and for some Centers also due to additional station data whichwas not used in the original processing (data submitted too late for routine IGS submissions ofsome Centers). Table 2.3 shows the estimated satellite sigmas in the orbit combination for theJanuary test set. Note that for a sigma larger or equal to 99cm a sigma of 99 is specified. Here, onecan clearly see the problem with PRN 11 on the f~st day of the tests (MJD 49004). On the last twodays satellite 32 is missing. This is due to the fact at this time the PRN 32 was changed to PRN 1.It is also interesting to see that the problems with PRN 17 and 21 on the day 6 of the first week as31
Rotation around X-axis (mas)1&0 0o 0 0 0 0k A o 4 iv cd A inI\III/,Ii +‘. ‘\‘. ‘\‘. ‘.‘.‘\\‘\“n.. ‘+.-. . . ‘\\. .. . . . . . .R-.-.”’x“”””-”. ..”..””. ..”/.. -{... -\,. . . . .,... $, ,/..,. ).%.. / .“x 4: “D..,..”” R,. ..””,..””..””/\ CD:~%3a. . nm-~‘..“:..~~..1’I I I I32
Page 1 and 2: ●INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEO
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS.FINAL AGENDA . .
Page 5 and 6: 13:30 NGS14:00 S1014:30 EMR15:00 CO
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:Prof. Gerhard
Page 10 and 11: Table 1. Current IGS Analysis Cente
Page 12 and 13: The first field identifies the reco
Page 14 and 15: Summary InformationThe third produc
Page 16 and 17: From Figure 1 we find that there ar
Page 18: to define a reference clock in thei
Page 22 and 23: SESSION 2(IGS orbit products)
Page 24 and 25: 1. introductionThe main objectives
Page 26 and 27: ecause of the above averaging. This
Page 28 and 29: RMS per center (m)o 0 0 0 0 0 oA0Iv
Page 30: Scale (ppb)I I I I I 11+-b~ul0Amo&I
Page 33: and NGS. Note that the day to day v
Page 37 and 38: discussed in Section 3 are here see
Page 39 and 40: -----------------------------------
Page 41 and 42: Residuals in Meters1 1 1 1 1 1 1=%m
Page 43 and 44: Residuals inMeters11111cnficJJw-o A
Page 45 and 46: I I I—Residuals in Meters..—.
Page 47 and 48: 1111ResidualsMeters,—{44
Page 49 and 50: Residuals in MetersI I I II I I IIc
Page 51 and 52: Rms in MetersI 1 ! I 1 10 n0 a0n.ff
Page 53 and 54: IGS- and the COM-sets, but that the
Page 55 and 56: Table 4.1 N.A. Baseline Repeatabili
Page 57 and 58: ..Figure 5.1:Clock solutions for FA
Page 59 and 60: specifically the preanalysis can be
Page 61 and 62: discussion, a question as to whethe
Page 63 and 64: SUMMARY OF SESSION 3This Session be
Page 65 and 66: IGS POSITION PAPER, IGS ANALYSIS CE
Page 67 and 68: and Earth orientation parameters (E
Page 69 and 70: LbPIERS and IGSCentral Bureausand D
Page 71 and 72: @ IGS will develop instructions, an
Page 73: 2.2 Analysis Center System DesignFi
Page 76 and 77: applied to the solution in order to
Page 78 and 79: ..standard deviations. This is conv
Page 80 and 81: known, the two solutions will be ad
Page 82 and 83: errors, and can therefore be used a
Page 84 and 85:
International Terrestrial Reference
Page 86 and 87:
Thus, there is the potential of fee
Page 88 and 89:
90” 100” 110” 120” 130” 1
Page 91 and 92:
adiation parameters for each satell
Page 93 and 94:
Bock, Y., R.I. Abbot, C.C. Counselm
Page 95 and 96:
SUMMARY OF SESSION 4This session st
Page 97 and 98:
INTERNATIONAL EARTH ROTATION SERVIC
Page 99 and 100:
x- differences with IERS0.001”I I
Page 101 and 102:
SUMMARY OF SESSION 5In the last ses
Page 103 and 104:
1) I(X3 PROCESSING/REPORTS/FORMATSS
Page 105 and 106:
IGS should foster and encourage reg
Page 107 and 108:
..INTERNATIONAL GPS SERVICE FORGEOD
Page 109 and 110:
ortL.s.4
Page 111 and 112:
1234567a91011121314IsIt17ItIs2C2122
Page 113 and 114:
. Ruth Neilan16S Central BureauJet
Page 115 and 116:
ON1T.>● Jim ZumbergeJet Propulsio
Page 117:
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION OF THE INTERN
show all

IGS Analysis Center Workshop - IGS - NASA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?