1996
DOI: 10.1007/bf02731140
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurement of dragging of inertial frames and gravitomagnetic field using laser-ranged satellites

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
52
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This strategy was implemented in the subsequent tests [101][102][103][104]. As a measure of the realistic uncertainty in the even zonals, Ciufolini [100,102,103] took the absolute value of the differences |∆J | = J A − J B = 2 4 among the estimated coefficients of two different Earth gravity models A and B whose intrinsic accuracies were quite different; for example, the models JGM3 [67] and GEMT-3S [105] were used in [101][102][103], where the estimated errors σ J = 2 4 of the individual coefficients of JGM3 [67] were more accurate than those of GEMT-3S [105] by about one order of magnitude. More precisely, Ciufolini [100] wrote: "Now, there is a basic problem to evaluate if these estimated errors in the spherical harmonic coefficients of the Earth's gravity field solution are consistent with the true errors in the value of these coefficients.…”
Section: The Tests With the Perigee Of Lageos-2mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This strategy was implemented in the subsequent tests [101][102][103][104]. As a measure of the realistic uncertainty in the even zonals, Ciufolini [100,102,103] took the absolute value of the differences |∆J | = J A − J B = 2 4 among the estimated coefficients of two different Earth gravity models A and B whose intrinsic accuracies were quite different; for example, the models JGM3 [67] and GEMT-3S [105] were used in [101][102][103], where the estimated errors σ J = 2 4 of the individual coefficients of JGM3 [67] were more accurate than those of GEMT-3S [105] by about one order of magnitude. More precisely, Ciufolini [100] wrote: "Now, there is a basic problem to evaluate if these estimated errors in the spherical harmonic coefficients of the Earth's gravity field solution are consistent with the true errors in the value of these coefficients.…”
Section: The Tests With the Perigee Of Lageos-2mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The numerical value of 1 was obtained by the known standard formula [54,101] for the J 2 node precession, and it allows, in principle, to exactly remove the bias due to the Earth's quadrupole. Moreover, Iorio [118][119][120][121] quantitatively calculated the magnitude of the systematic error due to the terrestrial multipoles with some of the recently released CHAMP/GRACE models and Eq.…”
Section: Eliminating the Perigee Of Lageos-2 With The Grace Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In order to perform reliable measurements in gravitational physics by means of the tracking of Earth's satellites [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] , as well as for space geodesy and geophysics applications [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] , a POD for the orbit of the considered satellites represents an essential prerequisite. In this context, the preliminary analyses we performed include a preparatory data reduction for the satellites orbit with a tailored setup for the models implemented in the software.…”
Section: Precise Orbit Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[25]. Tests have been effectively performed using the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites [26], according to a strategy involving a suitable combination of the nodes of both satellites and the perigee ω of LAGEOS II [27]. This was done to reduce the impact of the most relevant source of systematic bias, viz.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%