4.6 Article

Gravity field recovery from geodetic altimeter missions

期刊

ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 1059-1072

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.09.011

关键词

Marine gravity; Radar altimetry; Seafloor tectonics; Ocean variability

资金

  1. NASA SWOT program [NNX16AH64G]
  2. Office of Naval Research [N00014-17-1-2866]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Satellite radar altimetry has provided a new understanding of the topography and tectonics of the deep oceans, revealing smaller structures as technology improves. SARAL/AltiKa is found to provide the greatest contribution, while ERS-1 no longer offers significant improvement. The major limitation for recovering small scale gravity features is sea surface roughness from ocean waves.
Satellite radar altimetry collected during a number of geodetic missions has provided a new understanding of the topography and tectonics of the deep oceans. As altimeter performance and coverage improves, smaller structures are revealed. Here we investigate the contribution of six altimeter missions that have been placed into geodetic mapping phases for more than one year. Two types of evaluations are performed. We first compare the composite (all six altimeters) grids of east and north vertical deflection to matching grids where one altimeter has been omitted evaluate their contribution versus latitude. We then estimate the noise in each altimeter by computing the median absolute deviation of the profiles with the best composite grid. Both analyses show that SARAL/AltiKa provides the greatest contribution and ERS-1 no longer provides any significant improvement. The major limitation for recovering small scale gravity features is the sea surface roughness from ocean waves. There have been steady improvements in instrumentation and processing methods that will continue into the future with higher frequency radars and interferometric swath altimeters planned for future missions. (c) 2019 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据