1 / 10

A comparison of R1 and R4 IVS networks

A comparison of R1 and R4 IVS networks. S.B. Lambert, Royal Observatory of Belgium, formerly at NVI, Inc./US Naval Observatory A.-M. Gontier, Paris Observatory. Overview of the networks. Two parallel networks running since 2002. R1 (Mondays), 13 sites. R4 (Thursdays), 10 sites.

jud
Download Presentation

A comparison of R1 and R4 IVS networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A comparison of R1 and R4 IVS networks S.B. Lambert, Royal Observatory of Belgium, formerly at NVI, Inc./US Naval Observatory A.-M. Gontier, Paris Observatory

  2. Overview of the networks Two parallel networks running since 2002 R1 (Mondays), 13 sites R4 (Thursdays), 10 sites

  3. Overview of the networks Question: are the networks consistent? R1 (Mondays), 13 sites R4 (Thursdays), 10 sites Can they realize identically EOP and reference systems?

  4. Overview of the networks R1 (Mondays), 13 sites R4 (Thursdays), 10 sites

  5. EOP and baseline geometry Sensitivity of a baseline to Earth orientation, where X, Y and Z are the station coordinates: “permanent” network all sites x y UT1

  6. Description of the solution Solution run with R1 sessions only, then with R4 sessions only Global: site positions and velocities, antenna axes, source positions Arc: polar motion and rate, UT1-UTC and rate, nutation offsets NNR and NNT on all sites except MEDICINA and GILCREEK (known episodic motions) NNR on 212 ICRF defining sources Made with CALC/SOLVE software Compared against IERS Bulletin A (USNO combined solution)

  7. Comparison of EOP solutions Difference to IERS Bulletin A, mean standard error about 300 as

  8. Comparison of TRF 7-parameter Helmert transformation to compare individual TRF against ITRF R1 R4 Number of sites

  9. What shows up in operational series? Difference to IERS Bulletin A, standard error about 300 as

  10. Conclusion • Compares the 2 parallel 24-hour R1 and R4 networks run by the IVS • Looks at the possible influence of geometry, EOP and TRF realizations • Evolution of R1 between 2002 and 2005 greatly improved the R1 series : sites in the southern hemisphere after 2003 • Current R1 and R4 residuals against IERS Bulletin A have same standard deviation • R1 network more extended than R4 but with a reduced East-West “permanent” network • R4 smaller but “permanent” • R1-derived TRF closer to ITRF than R4-derived TRF but with larger uncertainties • Inconsistencies show up in operational series (drift of 30 as per year)

More Related