4.6 Article

Towards tropospheric delay estimation using GNSS smartphone receiver network

期刊

ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 12, 页码 4794-4805

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.09.041

关键词

GNSS; Troposphere; Crowdsourcing; Smartphones

资金

  1. European Space Agency (ESA) [NAVISP-EL1-008]
  2. Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores a collaborative crowdsourcing-based method using a smartphone receiver network to obtain GNSS meteorology measurements of the troposphere water vapor distribution. The method has the potential to expand the use of GNSS meteorology techniques into areas not covered by high-end receiver networks.
Information on the water vapor distribution of the troposphere is useful for weather monitoring and forecast. Water vapor distribution can be estimated from tropospheric delays produced by high-grade Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers. This type of techniques is currently used in the data assimilation process of Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models, especially, for the limited areas covered by these high-grade GNSS networks. We consider a new collaborative crowdsourcing-based alternative for obtaining these GNSS meteorology measurements. It relies on a GNSS smartphone receiver network, and hence promises to expand the use of GNSS meteorology techniques into areas not covered by high-end receiver networks. In order to assess the feasibility of estimating the troposphere water vapor distribution using such receiver networks, it is proposed a system architecture that supports the troposphere water vapor distribution estimation using a smartphone network. Next, it is presented the simulator test-bed that has been developed to emulate the proposed system in a representative way and to assess the system performances. The main motivation behind the simulator is that it provides a controlled environment for testing our method. (C) 2020 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