T is mostly for stabilizing the referenceRemote Sens. 2021, 13, x FOR PEER
T is primarily for stabilizing the referenceRemote Sens. 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWRemote Sens. 2021, 13,16 of15 of7. Impact of GNE-371 Protocol reference Orbit on Precise Point Positioning The GNSS orbit and clock facts is crucial for the PPP Guretolimod Autophagy method in connection for the traditional IGS-defined application. and time system. We assessed the effect of datum for far more precise geodetic coordinate The ECOMC model drastically reduces the orbit the reference orbit inside the cross-track path, exactly where the SLR mayPPP-derived station comodel deficiencies derived by the three ECOM-based models on not efficiently validate ordinates. The ionosphere-free linear mixture of dual-frequency measurements was the outcome. used for removing the first-order effect of ionosphere. Moreover, the float phase ambi7. Influence estimated in Orbit on Right here, Point Positioning guity was of Reference this operate.Precisethe IGS final clock as well as the tracking data from an IGS station, ALIC from Australia, had been utilized essentialassessment. strategy estimated coThe GNSS orbit and clock data is for this for the PPP The day-to-day in connection to the standard IGS-defined from IGS and time program. We assessed the effect ordinates have been in comparison with thosecoordinateweekly SINEX options. from the reference orbit derived by the three variations with respect for the IGS weekly soFigure 16 shows the daily coordinate ECOM-based models on PPP-derived station coordinates. The ionosphere-free statistical facts of the coordinate variations. lutions in 2018. Table 6 shows thelinear mixture of dual-frequency measurements was usedpresented the smallest RMS difference, followed by ECOM1 and ECOM2. This ECOMC for removing the first-order impact of ionosphere. In addition, the float phase ambiguity was estimated within this operate. Right here, the IGS final clock and the tracking information relaresult is constant with Tables 2, 4 and 5, suggesting that the ECOM2 model shows from an IGS station, ALIC from Australia, had been made use of for ECOMC. The The daily estimated tively large uncertainty compared to ECOM1 andthis assessment.improvement with the coordinates had been over ECOM2 and ECOM1 weekly SINEX solutions. ECOMC resolution when compared with those from IGS was roughly 20 and 13 , respecFigure that ECOM1 every day coordinate variations with respect for the IGS weekly tively. Note 16 shows the showed a five mm disagreement with all the IGS option within the E options Additionally, 6 shows the statistical reflect the orbit distinction of Table two. This path. in 2018. Table Table six will not totallyinformation on the coordinate differences. ECOMC since the station coordinate answer resulted from the least-squares adjustis mainlypresented the smallest RMS distinction, followed by ECOM1 and ECOM2. This outcome is consistent with Tables distinctive parameters which the ECOM2 model ment, which allocated errors into2, four and five, suggesting that might be correlated. shows somewhat substantial uncertaintya test exactly where aECOM1 and ECOMC. The improvement on the In addition, we set up in comparison with reference orbit directly from the IGS final orbit ECOMC solutionorbit fitting was not applied to this reference orbit, and 13 , respectively. was used. Here, more than ECOM2 and ECOM1 was approximately 20 in addition to a Lagrange funcNote that ECOM1 showed orbit interpolation. As together with the Table six, the IGS solution pretion was only made use of for the a 5 mm disagreement shown inIGS solution in the E direction. Moreover, Table six will not more than the ECOMC answer within the of RMS a.