Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:33:08.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polar Motion through 1977 from Doppler Satellite Observations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2015

Claus Oesterwinter
Claus Oesterwinter*
Affiliation:
Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Virginia

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Doppler observations of Navy Navigation Satellites have been used to compute pole positions on a daily basis since 1969. Limited results exist for the period 1964 to 1969. Based on Doppler observations from four or five satellites, the standard error for a five-day mean pole position is less than 20 cm. Comparisons are made between BIH, IPMS and ILS results and those obtained from Doppler. It is shown that the six years of reliable Doppler data since 1972 contribute little in finding the Chandler period. Using observations from the three astronomical sources over 12 years yields a Chandler period of 432.0 ± 0.2 days.

Type
Part VII: Doppler Satellite Methods
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 82: Time and the Earth's Rotation , 1979 , pp. 263 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1979 

References

Anderle, R. J.: 1970, “Polar Motion Determinations by U. S. Navy Doppler Satellite Observations”, Naval Weapons Laboratory Technical Report TR-2432, Dahlgren, Virginia.Google Scholar
Anderle, R. J.: 1972, “Pole Position for 1971 Based on Doppler Satellite Observations”, Naval Weapons Laboratory Technical Report TR-2734, Dahlgren, Virginia.Google Scholar
Anderle, R. J.: 1973a, Geophysical Surveys 1, p. 147.Google Scholar
Anderle, R. J.: 1973b, “Pole Position for 1972 Based on Doppler Satellite Observations”, Naval Weapons Laboratory Report TR-2952, Dahlgren, Virginia.Google Scholar
Anderle, R. J.: 1976a, “Comparison of Doppler and Optical Pole Position over Twelve Years”, Naval Surface Weapons Center Technical Report TR-3464, Dahlgren, Virginia.Google Scholar
Anderle, R. J.: 1976b, Bulletin Geodesique 50, p. 377.Google Scholar
Anderle, R. J.: 1976c, “Polar Motion Determined by Doppler Satellite Observations”, paper presented at meeting of IAU Commission 19, Grenoble.Google Scholar
Anderle, R. J., and Beuglass, L. K.: 1970, Bulletin Geodesique 96, p. 125.Google Scholar
Beuglass, L. K.: 1974, “Pole Position for 1973 Based on Doppler Satellite Observations”, Naval Surface Weapons Center Technical Report TR-3181, Dahlgren, Virginia.Google Scholar
Beuglass, L. K., and Anderle, R. J.: 1972, in Henriksen, S. W., Mancini, A., Chovitz, B. H. (eds.), “The Use of Artificial Satellites for Geodesy”, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Bowman, B. R., and Leroy, C. F.: 1976, in “Satellite Doppler Positioning”, Proceedings International Geodetic Symposium, October 1976.Google Scholar
Kershner, R. B.: 1967, in “Practical Space Applications, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences”, vol. 21, p. 41.Google Scholar
Markowitz, W.: 1976, “Comparison of ILS, IPMS, and Doppler Polar Motions with Theoretical”, Report to IAU Commissions 19 and 31, Grenoble.Google Scholar
Nouel, F. et al.: 1978, “Determination of Polar Motion by Doppler Tracking of Artificial Satellites”, CRGS MEDOC Bulletin, January 1978.Google Scholar
Vicente, R. O., and Currie, R. G.: 1976, Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 46, p. 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar