Ate 3D orbits. In view in the orbit discontinuity at day
Ate 3D orbits. In view in the orbit discontinuity at day boundaries, a related concept of data evaluation from the operate in Griffiths and Ray (2009) for the assessment of orbit accuracy was Remote Sens. 2021, 13, x FOR PEER Evaluation 14 of 18 performed as shown in Figure 12. A backward overlap was computed by the Tasisulam MedChemExpress distinction at epoch 23:45 involving an orbit of Day i – 1 and also a propagated orbit (the dashed arrow) Remote Sens. 2021, 13, x FOR PEER Overview epoch 0:00 of Day i. A forward overlap was the distinction at epoch 0:00 involving a 14 of 18 from propagated orbit (the dash arrow) from epoch 23:45 of Day i and an orbit of Day i 1. This accuracy assessment accounted for the orbit inconsistency at each day boundaries.Figure 12. Illustration of day boundary discontinuity for orbit accuracy assessment.Figure 12. Illustration of day boundary discontinuity for orbit accuracy assessment. Figure 13 shows the RMS from the forward overlap at day assessment. Figure 12. Illustration of day boundary discontinuity for orbit accuracyboundaries as a function ofangle for 13 shows theECOM2 presented significant RMSat day boundaries as a function of Figure IIF and IIR. RMS from the forward overlap values in the cross-track direction. AsFigure 13 showsIIR. ECOM2 the forward overlap at 1 CPRin the cross-track direction. discussed previously, thisof presented substantial RMS values terms thatas a function of angle for IIF along with the RMS is simply because ECOM2 lacks day boundaries enhance the estiAs discussed and IIR. ECOM2 is since significant RMS valuesCPR terms that boost the angle forof the even-orderthis presented ECOM2 lacks 1 innot the case for ECOM1 and mations IIF previously, periodic terms. However, this was the cross-track direction. As discussed of the even-order periodic terms. However, this4was not the averaged RMS of ECOMC. ECOMC was slightly far better than ECOM1. Table shows the case for ECOM1 estimations previously, this can be since ECOM2 lacks 1 CPR terms that improve the estimations of overlap in the day boundaries. ECOM2 presented the biggest orbit RMS, followed the ECOMC. ECOMC periodic terms. Having said that, this was Table shows the averaged and orbit the even-orderwas slightly better than ECOM1. not the4case for ECOM1 and ECOMC. the orbit overlap at thebetterboundaries.accuracy presentedthe averaged RMS of to by ECOM1 and ECOMC. All round, the ECOM1. Table four shows the biggest ECOM2 RMS of ECOMC was slightly day than orbit ECOM2 improvements from orbit RMS, the orbit overlap 13.2 , 14.eight , and 42.six forthe presented the and 7.four , 7.7 ,from 35.0 for ECOMC have been at the day boundaries. ECOM2 IIF accuracy improvements and ECOM2 followed by ECOM1 and ECOMC. All round, theorbitsatellites largest orbit RMS, followed bythe IIR satellites 13.two ,radial, along-track,foraccuracy improvements from ECOM2 to to ECOM1 and ECOMC. General, the orbit the IIF satellites and 7.4 , 7.7 , and 35.0 ECOMC were inside the 14.8 , and 42.6 and cross-track directions. ECOMCIIR satellites inside the radial, along-track, IIF satellites FM4-64 Data Sheet anddirections. and 35.0 for for the were 13.2 , 14.8 , and 42.6 for the and cross-track 7.four , 7.7 , the IIR satellites within the radial, along-track, and cross-track directions.Figure 13. The RMS of the forward day-boundary overlap in within the radial (R), along-track (T), and cross-track (N) directions Figure 13. The RMS with the forward day-boundary overlap the radial (R), along-track (T), and cross-track (N) directions as aas a function of IIF (major) andand (bottom) in 2018: ECOM1 (blue), ECOM2 (red), anda.
