Positioning Accuracy Improvement of GF-5B VIMS Images Based on Attitude Error Spatiotemporal Compensation

Yanli Wang; Mi Wang; Zhipeng Dong; Chengcheng Fan

doi:10.3788/AOS231500

Acta Optica Sinica, Volume. 44, Issue 12, 1228004(2024)

Positioning Accuracy Improvement of GF-5B VIMS Images Based on Attitude Error Spatiotemporal Compensation

Yanli Wang¹, Mi Wang^2、*, Zhipeng Dong³, and Chengcheng Fan^4,5

Author Affiliations

¹College of Geodesy and Geomatics, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, Shandong , China

²State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, Hubei , China

³First Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Qingdao 266061, Shandong , China

⁴Innovation Academy for Microsatellites of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201210, China

⁵Shanghai Engineering Center for Microsatellites, Shanghai 201210, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(15)

Fig. 1. Flow chart for the calibration and compensation of attitude low frequency error

Download full size

Fig. 2. Characteristics of low-frequency error (LFE) of GF-5B satellite on January 1, 2022. (a) Spatiotemporal characteristics of LFE among 15 orbital periods; (b) relationship between LFE and orbital position; (c) relationship between LFE and orbital period

Download full size

Fig. 3. Spatiotemporal characteristics of ALFE of GF-5B satellite from January 1 to June 30, 2022. (a) January 2022; (b) February 2022; (c) March 2022; (d) April 2022; (e) May 2022; (f) June 2022

Download full size

Fig. 4. Changes of ALFE in different latitude regions in 181 d

Download full size

Fig. 5. Modeling results of ALFE of GF-5B satellite. (a) ss2, 3-ss1, 2; (b) ss2, 3-ss1, 3

Download full size

Fig. 6. Compensation of ALFE of GF-5B satellite. (a) Original difference between ss2, 3 and ss1, 2; (b) original difference between ss2, 3 and ss1, 3; (c) difference between ss2, 3 and ss1, 2 with onboard installation parameters; (d) difference between ss2, 3 and ss1, 3 with onboard installation parameters; (e) difference between ss2, 3 and ss1, 2 after ALFE compensation; (f) difference between ss2, 3 and ss1, 3 after ALFE compensation

Download full size

Fig. 7. Variation of geometric positioning accuracy for VIMS images

Download full size

Fig. 8. Geometric positioning error of check points. (a) Image No. 8; (b) image No. 10

Download full size

Table 1. Parameters of GF-5B satellite

View table

Table 1. Parameters of GF-5B satellite

Type	Parameter	Value
Orbit	Type	SunSync
	Altitude /km	705
	Inclination /(°)	98.203
	Descending node	10:30
VIMS	Spectral range /μm	B1: 0.45-0.52 B2: 0.52-0.60 B3: 0.62-0.68 B4: 0.76-0.86	B5: 1.55-1.75 B6: 2.08-2.35 B7: 3.50-3.90 B8: 4.85-5.05	B9: 8.01-8.39 B10: 8.42-8.83 B11: 10.3-11.3 B12: 11.4-12.5
VIMS	Resolution /m	20	20/40	40
Star sensor	Sensor	star sensor 1 (ss1)	star sensor 2 (ss2)	star sensor 3 (ss3)
Star sensor	Frequency /Hz	4

Table 2. Experimental data of GF-5B

View table

Table 2. Experimental data of GF-5B

Image No.	Imaging time	Center position	Spatial resolution /m	Attitude mode
1	2022-01-02T11:46:10.234	50.531°N, 109.631°E	19.99998	ss1, 2
2	2022-01-02T11:47:32.541	45.648°N, 107.680°E	20.02773	ss1, 2
3	2022-01-02T11:50:25.357	35.348°N, 104.338°E	20.00442	ss1, 2
4	2022-01-02T13:30:46.789	29.888°N, 78.134°E	20.09544	ss1, 3
5	2022-01-02T13:32:09.079	24.896°N, 76.867°E	20.09655	ss1, 3
6	2022-01-02T13:33:29.082	20.039°N, 75.710°E	20.11320	ss1, 3
7	2022-01-04T13:11:38.028	50.426°N, 88.243°E	19.97778	ss1, 2
8	2022-01-04T13:12:58.251	45.578°N, 86.312°E	20.03328	ss1, 2
9	2022-03-04T12:21:20.013	50.083°N, 101.129°E	20.03550	ss1, 3
10	2022-03-04T12:22:34.885	45.665°N, 99.379°E	20.03772	ss1, 3
11	2022-03-04T12:25:11.150	36.327°N, 96.325°E	20.06325	ss2, 3
12	2022-03-04T12:27:55.645	26.299°N, 93.628°E	20.11653	ss2, 3

Table 3. Model residual of ALFE for GF-5B satellite
View table
Table 3. Model residual of ALFE for GF-5B satellite
Model Mean residual /(″) RMS /(″)
Yaw Roll Pitch Yaw Roll Pitch
ss2, 3-ss1, 2 -7.115×10^-5 -1.162×10^-5 3.501×10^-4 0.178 0.095 0.131
ss2, 3-ss1, 3 3.813×10^-5 2.040×10^-4 -7.515×10^-4 0.061 0.092 0.086

Table 4. Model residual of ALFE with different numbers of segements

View table

Table 4. Model residual of ALFE with different numbers of segements

Model	Number of segments	Max. residual /(″)			Min. residual /(″)			RMS /(″)
Model	Number of segments	Yaw	Roll	Pitch	Yaw	Roll	Pitch	Yaw	Roll	Pitch
ss2, 3-ss1, 2	1	9.861	6.350	18.492	-12.483	-5.526	-16.018	4.155	2.200	6.173
	3	5.757	4.232	10.244	-6.293	-3.280	-10.488	2.388	1.366	3.311
	5	4.747	2.657	5.164	-5.355	-2.889	-6.283	1.728	0.841	1.791
	10	2.357	2.108	3.288	-3.393	-1.459	-2.459	0.786	0.451	0.698
	20	0.902	0.445	0.729	-0.906	-0.428	-0.580	0.178	0.095	0.131
ss2, 3-ss1, 3	1	4.176	5.904	11.110	-3.649	-3.784	-11.273	1.532	1.978	4.698
	3	2.314	3.806	6.748	-2.123	-2.989	-6.396	0.880	1.314	2.291
	5	1.808	2.828	7.426	-1.611	-2.701	-5.039	0.605	0.925	1.664
	10	1.038	1.537	2.208	-0.887	-1.418	-1.896	0.286	0.450	0.565
	20	0.297	0.476	0.570	-0.314	-0.480	-0.665	0.061	0.092	0.086

Table 5. Compensation results of ALFE of GF-5B satellite

View table

Table 5. Compensation results of ALFE of GF-5B satellite

Model	Condition	Mean ALFE /(″)			RMS /(″)
Model	Condition	Yaw	Roll	Pitch	Yaw	Roll	Pitch
ss2, 3-ss1, 2	Original	-241.041	431.956	687.319	241.271	431.995	687.595
	After installation calibration	0.814	-0.515	-1.538	10.540	6.132	19.467
	After ALFE compensation	1.109	-0.598	-1.562	6.821	3.538	9.886
ss2, 3-ss1, 3	Original	-7.563	325.951	-618.751	8.428	325.997	618.921
	After installation calibration	-0.234	-0.352	0.308	3.146	5.025	14.824
	After ALFE compensation	-0.252	-0.553	1.012	1.855	3.192	6.219

Table 6. Geometric positioning accuracy of VIMS images before ALFE compensation

View table

Table 6. Geometric positioning accuracy of VIMS images before ALFE compensation

Image No.	Mean error /pixel			RMS /pixel
Image No.	d_x	d_y	d_xy	m_x	m_y	m_xy
1	-0.311	-4.599	4.610	0.475	4.645	4.670
2	-0.584	-1.775	1.868	0.688	1.885	2.007
3	-0.543	-2.348	2.410	0.859	2.573	2.713
4	0.379	-2.672	2.699	0.876	2.855	2.986
5	1.459	-3.066	3.395	1.610	3.146	3.534
6	1.773	-2.331	2.929	1.934	2.555	3.205
7	-0.794	-6.825	6.871	0.954	6.864	6.930
8	-1.657	-9.006	9.157	1.935	9.046	9.251
9	2.309	-2.519	3.417	2.419	2.691	3.618
10	1.358	-3.445	3.703	1.434	3.544	3.823
11	1.068	-1.289	1.674	1.167	1.477	1.882
12	1.643	-0.357	1.681	1.737	1.187	2.104

Table 7. Geometric positioning accuracy of VIMS images after ALFE compensation

View table

Table 7. Geometric positioning accuracy of VIMS images after ALFE compensation

Image No.	Mean error /pixel			RMS /pixel
Image No.	d_x	d_y	d_xy	m_x	m_y	m_xy
1	1.430	1.453	2.038	1.474	1.572	2.155
2	-0.045	1.527	1.528	0.362	1.657	1.696
3	-0.285	0.133	0.315	0.727	1.053	1.279
4	0.257	-1.351	1.375	0.836	1.684	1.880
5	0.300	0.268	0.402	0.740	0.741	1.047
6	1.426	0.128	1.431	1.621	1.092	1.955
7	0.473	-1.607	1.675	0.704	1.739	1.877
8	0.176	-2.268	2.275	1.015	2.414	2.619
9	1.527	0.339	1.565	1.691	1.008	1.968
10	0.969	-1.737	1.989	1.075	1.908	2.190

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Yanli Wang, Mi Wang, Zhipeng Dong, Chengcheng Fan. Positioning Accuracy Improvement of GF-5B VIMS Images Based on Attitude Error Spatiotemporal Compensation[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2024, 44(12): 1228004

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites