Work

Comparisons of Differential Code Bias (DCB) Estimates and Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO)-Topside Ionosphere Extraction Based on Two Different Topside Ionosphere Processing Methods

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) differential code bias (DCB) and topside ionosphere vertical electron content (VEC) can be estimated using onboard data from low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites. These satellites provide the potential to make up for the lack of ground-based stations in the oceanic and polar regions and establish a high-precision global ionosphere model. In order to study the influences of different LEO-topside VEC processing methods on estimates, we creatively analyzed and compared the results and accuracy of the DCBs and LEO-topside VEC estimates using two topside VEC solutions—the SH-topside VEC (spherical harmonic-topside vertical electron content) and EP-topside VEC (epoch parameter-topside vertical electron content) methods. Some conclusions are drawn as follows. (1) Using GRACE-A data (400 km in 2016), the monthly stabilities (STDs) of GPS satellite DCBs and LEO receiver DCBs using the EP-topside VEC method are better than those using the SH-topside VEC method. For JASON-2 data (1350 km), the STD results of GPS DCBs using the SH-topside VEC method are slightly superior to those using the EP-topside VEC method, and LEO DCBs using the two methods have similar STD results. However, the root mean square (RMS) results for GPS DCBs using the SH-topside VEC model relative to the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE) products are slightly superior to those using the EP-topside VEC method. (2) The peak ranges of the actual GRACE-A-topside VEC results using the SH-topside VEC and EP-topside VEC methods are within 42 and 35 TECU, respectively, while the peak ranges of the JASON-2-topside VEC results are both within 6 TECU. Additionally, only the SH-topside VEC model results are displayed due to the EP-topside VEC method not modeling VEC. Due to the difference in orbital altitude, the results and distributions of the GRACE-topside VECs differ from those of the JASON-topside VECs, with the former being more consistent with the ground-based results, indicating that there may be different height structures in the LEO-topside VECs. In addition, we applied the IRI-GIM (International Reference Ionosphere model–Global Ionosphere Map) method to compare the LEO-based topside VEC results, which indicate that the accuracy of GRACE-A-topside VEC using the EP-topside VEC method is better than that using the SH-topside VEC method, whereas for JASON-2, the two methods have similar accuracy. Meanwhile, we note that the temporal and spatial resolutions of the SH-topside VEC method are higher than those of the EP-topside VEC method, and the former has a wide range of usability and predictive characteristics. The latter seems to correspond to the single-epoch VEC mean of the former to some extent.

Source: Remote Sensing

DOI: 10.3390/rs17213550

Authors: Mingming Liu, Yunbin Yuan, Jikun Ou, Bingfeng Tan

Institution: Innovation Academy for Precision Measurement Science and Technology, CAS

Language: English

Topic: GNSS positioning and interference

Subfield: Aerospace Engineering

Field: Engineering

Domain: Physical Sciences

Open Access status: gold

Estimated APC paid: $3,258

Funders: Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province