T is mainly for stabilizing the referenceRemote Sens. 2021, 13, x FOR PEER
T is mostly for stabilizing the referenceRemote Sens. 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWRemote Sens. 2021, 13,16 of15 of7. Effect of Reference Orbit on Precise Point Positioning The GNSS orbit and clock facts is essential for the PPP technique in connection towards the traditional IGS-defined application. and time method. We assessed the influence of datum for a lot more precise geodetic coordinate The ECOMC model drastically reduces the orbit the reference orbit inside the cross-track direction, where the SLR mayPPP-derived station comodel deficiencies derived by the three ECOM-based RP101988 Purity models on not properly validate ordinates. The ionosphere-free linear mixture of dual-frequency measurements was the outcome. applied for removing the first-order effect of ionosphere. In addition, the float phase ambi7. Effect estimated in Orbit on Here, Point Positioning guity was of Reference this perform.Precisethe IGS final clock along with the tracking data from an IGS station, ALIC from Australia, were utilized essentialBSJ-01-175 Autophagy assessment. technique estimated coThe GNSS orbit and clock info is for this for the PPP The every day in connection for the traditional IGS-defined from IGS and time technique. We assessed the influence ordinates have been when compared with thosecoordinateweekly SINEX solutions. from the reference orbit derived by the three differences with respect towards the IGS weekly soFigure 16 shows the each day coordinate ECOM-based models on PPP-derived station coordinates. The ionosphere-free statistical facts in the coordinate differences. lutions in 2018. Table 6 shows thelinear combination of dual-frequency measurements was usedpresented the smallest RMS difference, followed by ECOM1 and ECOM2. This ECOMC for removing the first-order effect of ionosphere. Moreover, the float phase ambiguity was estimated within this operate. Here, the IGS final clock and the tracking information relaresult is consistent with Tables two, four and 5, suggesting that the ECOM2 model shows from an IGS station, ALIC from Australia, have been utilized for ECOMC. The The each day estimated tively large uncertainty in comparison with ECOM1 andthis assessment.improvement of the coordinates were over ECOM2 and ECOM1 weekly SINEX solutions. ECOMC remedy when compared with those from IGS was around 20 and 13 , respecFigure that ECOM1 everyday coordinate variations with respect for the IGS weekly tively. Note 16 shows the showed a 5 mm disagreement using the IGS resolution within the E options Furthermore, 6 shows the statistical reflect the orbit distinction of Table two. This direction. in 2018. Table Table six will not totallyinformation of your coordinate variations. ECOMC because the station coordinate remedy resulted in the least-squares adjustis mainlypresented the smallest RMS difference, followed by ECOM1 and ECOM2. This outcome is consistent with Tables different parameters which the ECOM2 model ment, which allocated errors into2, 4 and five, suggesting that might be correlated. shows relatively huge uncertaintya test where aECOM1 and ECOMC. The improvement on the Additionally, we setup compared to reference orbit directly in the IGS final orbit ECOMC solutionorbit fitting was not applied to this reference orbit, and 13 , respectively. was employed. Here, more than ECOM2 and ECOM1 was roughly 20 as well as a Lagrange funcNote that ECOM1 showed orbit interpolation. As with all the Table six, the IGS answer pretion was only utilised for the a 5 mm disagreement shown inIGS solution within the E path. Additionally, Table six will not more than the ECOMC option in the of RMS a.