Tag: WGS 84

  • Terry Moore honored with Kepler Award

    Terry Moore honored with Kepler Award

    Terry Moore
    Terry Moore

    The Institute of Navigation’s (ION) Satellite Division presented Professor Terry Moore with its Johannes Kepler Award for his outstanding contributions to the development of satellite navigation through a sustained and distinguished professional career devoted to research and teaching.

    Moore received the award Sept. 29 at the ION GNSS+ Conference in Portland, Ore. Moore is a member of the GPS World Editorial Advisory Board.

    Terry Moore has more than 30 years of research experience in surveying, positioning and navigation technologies, and is a consultant and advisor to European and U.K. government organizations and industry.

    He has taken a leading role in national and European initiatives aimed at integrating academic research and teaching activities in GNSS and interacting closely with industry.

    Moore is credited with extensive work on the introduction and implementation of WGS 84 as the standard reference systems for air and marine navigation, as well as the development of standard software tools for coordinate transformations and map projections used extensively through the aviation industry.

    Additionally, he is known for the development of GRINGO software that pioneered the use of raw GPS code and carrier phase data from low cost Garmin receivers. His work has also includes the pioneering of novel methods and algorithms for GPS orbit relaxation; which led to reduced dynamic GPS-based orbit determination for LEO spacecraft, with a real-time implementation.

    Moore is the Director of the Nottingham Geospatial Institute (NGI) at the University of Nottingham where he has responsibility for all of NGI’s research and teaching. He is also the founding Director of GRACE, the GNSS Research and Applications Centre of Excellence, which was jointly funded by the University of Nottingham and East Midlands Development Agency, and targets knowledge transfer between the NGI and business. Additionally, he leads the university-wide Aerospace and Transport Technology Research Priority Area.

    Moore has supervised numerous research projects funded by industry, research councils, the European Space Agency and the European Commission, and has supervised more than 30 Ph.D. students.

    Moore is involved in the volunteer activities of numerous international professional and scientific bodies. He is currently a Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN) Vice-President (now also President Elect) and a member of their Technical Committee, while simultaneously serving on the ION Council as a Technical Representative and as a co-chair of the ION’s Satellite Division’s Technical Peer Review Committee.

    He has served on the ION’s Satellite Division Executive Committee on numerous occasions and is a past ION GNSS+ program and general chair.

    Moore is a Fellow of both the Institute of Navigation and the Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN). He is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and an Associate Fellow of the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society. In 1999 and 2008 he was awarded the RIN Richey Medal (best paper in the RIN Journal of Navigation), in 2013 was awarded the RIN Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal (outstanding contributions to navigation), and in 2016 the RIN J.E.D. Williams Medal (contributions to the RIN).

    He holds a BSc degree in Civil Engineering and Ph.D. degree in Space Geodesy, both from the University of Nottingham, where he was promoted to the U.K.’s first Chair of Satellite Navigation in 2001.

    The Johannes Kepler Award recognizes and honors an individual for sustained and significant contributions to the development of satellite navigation. It is the highest honor bestowed by the ION’s Satellite Division.

  • Data collection of WGS 84 information — or is it?

    Location, location, location. It’s not just the tagline for real estate and sales; it’s about all of us, all of the time.

    Thanks to technology, everything revolves around location these days. It is in our cars, smartphones, exercise trackers, and even our packages. GPS has revolutionized so many things in our lives, but most people do not know how it truly works. They get the general idea of satellites beaming radio signals to Earth and translated into a position on the Earth, but that’s as far as it gets for most.

    Understanding the location relationship by points on the face of the Earth is something much more involved and gets quite complicated. Thanks to sophisticated computers and programming power, this complex bundle of formulas and computations are solved behind the scenes with little effort. All we know is that when our location shows up on our phone, we can share it with friends and family, search for the closest coffee shop, or have it tell us how long until we get home.

    This also affects professional surveyors more than many of them truly understand. The introduction of GPS has allowed many to produce work products with greater efficiency, but without understanding the true geodesy, math and positional accuracies behind the technology.

    Let’s take a look back in time to understand where we have come, to better understand why knowing the basis of datums is so important:

    IN THE BEGINNING

    Until the early 1900s, surveyors only measured what they could see and didn’t allow for any curvature of the Earth, (it is round, by the way…). Only after the introduction of long-baseline survey projects was there any consideration for adjustment to survey measurements.

    Extensive surveying observations were performed nationwide to establish a network of standardized horizontal positions throughout the land. Using least-square adjustment methods originally developed by Carl Friedrich Gauss to help with estimation of orbital movement of the planets, this network was developed using the Clarke Ellipsoid of 1866 with a base point of Meade’s Ranch, Kansas.

    The observed location of the initial point was determined at 39°13’26.686” North latitude, 98°32’30.506” West longitude; from here, all latitudes and longitudes are measured using the Clarke Ellipsoid for reference.

    This datum, called the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27), was used extensively by government surveyors and geodesists for many decades, but because of the highly involved mathematics involved in the computations, very few private surveyors were trained to work within the datum.

    More than 26,000 survey stations were used in the computation of NAD27, all being manually observed and measured. The electronic distance meter and long-range theodolite help proliferate more reference points over time, but still required heavy-duty computation to determine results for the new positions.

    THE COMPUTER AGE

    The implementation of computers, both mainframe and personal computers, allowed for further development of programming that analyzed survey data faster and more accurately than humanly possible. This technology allowed geodesists to compute positions with more reliable results, but still lacked significant involvement by professional surveyors.

    As I’ve covered in previous articles, the development of a global positioning system by the Department of Defense created the ability to establish locations nearly anywhere. Their work started in the late 1950s with the development of an inter-continental geodetic system (World Geodetic System 1960 or WGS 60) to work with other nations. Continued refinement in the WGS data allowed for the development of a new geodetic datum that would be Earth-centered rather than the fixed-station method used by NAD27.

    In addition to the measuring method, there was also a much larger number of monuments now available for implementing into the new system. Approximately 250,000 points were included in the initial database for the new datum along with additional terrestrial and Doppler satellite data to create the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). Improvements with NAD83 over NAD27 included the correction and improvement of data distortion from earlier observations through the increased densification of information.

    A big difference from the previous datum was the use of the Geodetic Reference System of 1980 (GRS80) instead of the previously implemented Clarke Ellipsoid. It also offered global projection rather than localized realization of data. Because of these large differences based on projection methods, use of a larger ellipsoid and basis of coordinate values, it is somewhat easy to distinguish the difference between the two datums. But like life itself, everything is subject to change.

    BUT CHANGE IS INEVITABLE

    nga-logoThe National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) published a Standardization Document in July 2014 outlining WGS 84, its parameters and history, along with the intended relationship with local geodetic systems.

    The standards covered in the document included:

    • Coordinate Systems
    • The use of GPS in the development of the WGS84 Reference Frame
    • Ellipsoid and its defining parameters
    • Ellipsoidal Gravity formula
    • Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008)
    • EGM2008 Geoid Model
    • The World Magnetic Model (WMM)
    • WGS 84 relationships with other Geodetic Systems
    • Accuracy of WGS 84 and its models
    • Implementation Guidelines

    NGA continues to improve and refine the WGS 84 reference frame in order to standardize all future GNSS measurement. Let’s take a look at a few more specific characteristics of our current reference frames.

    WGS 84 BASICS

    The WGS 84 Coordinate System is a Conventional Terrestrial Reference System (CTRS). It has a right-handed, Earth-fixed orthogonal coordinate format. The system origin also serves as the geometric center of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, and the Z-axis serves as the rotational axis of this ellipsoid of revolution.

    It was established in 1987 with the intent of aligning with the Bureau International de l’Heure (BIH) Terrestrial System, also known as the BTS reference frame. Initial accuracies of the reference frame were 1-2 meters; ongoing refinement was important to the NGA team and development continued.

    The WGS 84 Reference Frame has been updated six times, with revisions taking place in 1994, 1997, 2002, 2012 and 2013. These updates are intended to incorporate international conventions and to align with the International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2008 (ITRF2008).

    Environmental changes in updated models and methods have begun to make discrepancies in the relationship between the reference frames, so improvements have been made to cause these periodic changes to the WGS 84 frame. The intent and result of each revision has been to improve its accuracy and precision, so applying constraints to WGS 84 in order to align it with ITRF results in maintaining continuity with other GNSS worldwide.

    With this latest revision to the WGS 84 reference frame, WGS 84 (G1762), the transformation differences with the International GNSS Service (IGb08) is essentially zero. This means users of the latest version of WGS 84 can use the data in its original state to translate to international measurements when necessary.

    ITRF2008 was recently updated to ITRF2014, but maintains its consistent relationship with WGS 84 (G1762) with centimeter-level accuracy.

    The original WGS 84 reference frame is still used by most consumer-grade GPS devices (smartphones, vehicle navigation, etc.). It has retained the original major-axis value to eliminate the need for various updates and modifications for these devices and mapping software. This allows existing collections of geospatial data to retain its values and not be subject to transformation or additional computation.

    NAD83 BASICS

    The NAD83 coordinate reference system is a horizontal adjustment of existing data from previous surveys, Doppler and Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) data. The geocentric datum is earth-centered/Earth-fixed, utilizes the GRS80 ellipsoid, and is intended to be identical to the original WGS 84 reference frame with the origin at the center of the mass of the Earth.

    The implementation of GPS-based data collection uncovered a discrepancy with the originally calculated center of the reference frame of up to 2 meters. This revelation rendered the reference frame flawed under its original configuration with positional errors up to 1-2 meters being commonplace.

    By 1997, additional observation data was introduced along with application of high-accuracy reference network (HARN) information to greatly increase horizontal accuracy. This was followed by the addition of continuously operating reference station (CORS) data through 2002, and then by the implementation of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) in 2007. The last major re-adjustment occurred in 2011 with more observation and CORS data.

    It is from this framework that the State Plane Coordinate (SPC) systems were developed for localized use. Transformation parameters were created to allow smaller coordinate values for easier use in all types for mapping and data collection. This is also where most surveyors were introduced to a simplified form of geodesy, but without the complicated formulas generally associated with its use.

    Hardware and software enhancements have made the implementation of SPC systems much easier than past computations. The continued refinement of the NAD83 system through significant adjustments and equipment upgrades has given the surveyor a lot of confidence in this system, but I still caution our profession to promote QA/QC programs to verify the information being collected. GPS data acquisition techniques are not infallible and appropriate caution during use is still required.

    SYSTEM COMPARISON

    The concept of a world geodetic system is to provide a globally dedicated reference system and to minimize or eliminate the need for local systems. The usual reason for a local coordinate system was to meet the needs for an area before the implementation of a larger system was possible. So often, the worst part of having and maintaining a horizontal system separate from a world system is the means and methods of transformation/translation of data.

    In the meantime, here are a few of the main differences between WGS 84 and NAD83:

    • While both use a similar ellipsoid, they differ slightly and thus create different results.
    • The coordinate system for WGS 84 is geographic, and the NAD83 system is projected.
    • WGS 84 values are points in space, while NAD83 coordinates are physical locations on the Earth.
    • WGS 84 is based upon the NAVSTAR satellite system, and the NAD83 system is based upon a network of ground points, observation data and CORS.
    • WGS 84 ellipsoid is defined as a geocentric, equipotential frame, whereas NAD83 considers GRAV-D data collection and tectonic plate velocities.
    • While the original WGS 84 system aligns with the NAD83 (1986) adjustment, further refinement of WGS 84 has been completed to maintain similarity to ITRF realizations.

     

    Until there is a redevelopment of the GPS system (including hardware), we must realize the limitation of each system and work together to make sure the relationship is understood by all who work with it.

    DATA COLLECTION NOTES

    With the advances in GNSS receivers, data collectors and RTK network opportunities, GPS data has proliferated greatly in the past 20+ years. What began as simple data collection with complex computing necessary to determine positional values has now turned into a plethora of available systems at your fingertips. Surveyors are now considered an “expert” in geodesy overnight, with very little education or knowledge of what they are truly measuring and publishing for coordinate and geodetic values.

     

    A majority of GPS data collection happens in a real-time network (RTN) scenario: (1) with a base station on a published coordinate point or OPUS-derived value, or (2) with a cellular-based RTN. Both situations are typically constrained by built-in NAD83 parameters within the data collector software to produce localized or state plane coordinate values. For projects that rely on these coordinates, these methods are perfectly acceptable.

    google-earthWhere the fork in the road appears is when geodetic values are required for data collection of geographic information system (GIS) database creation. Many GIS users understand the difference between WGS 84 and NAD83 data, whereas the typical professional surveyor does not. The data required for GIS use (such as Esri, Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth) is typically defaulted to WGS 84 because most mapping is done for use by those with the simplest needs: the consumer. Consumers are using GPS in many personal devices, and keeping the programming and mapping requirements simple is key to their success. Excessive accuracy is not necessary when it comes to these devices, so a meter or two variations is perfectly acceptable. That is why the original WGS 84 reference frame is programmed into these devices and is still utilized for most large-scale mapping needs. But what happens when the mapping needs to be more precise?

    The need for precise data collection gets us back to the surveying community. Information collected by most surveyors is assumed to be in WGS 84 because “That’s what my data collector told me it was.” Ideally, the best way to gather actual WGS 84 values is to occupy the required locations and collect satellite data using a stationary, dual-frequency GPS receiver and noting the correct epoch and associated fixed-station GPS coordinate data used. Locations derived from data collected in local coordinate systems and transformed to WGS 84 values will be subject to characteristics and distortions potentially affecting the local system. This leads your subject data down an uncertainty path that may not be acceptable to your delivered product.

    Typically, data collected in NAD83 (2011) is in the 1- to 2-meter accuracy range from WGS 84 as previous discussed. These accuracies are not usually acceptable in the surveying world and hopefully not in most GIS base-layer situations either.

    One of the best solutions for high-accuracy data collection that will be more compatible with GIS database needs is to start your data collection with ITRF-based points, if possible. This method keeps your data consistent with current WGS 84 reference frame parameters and will fit seamlessly into most systems as required. Most hardware and software systems allow for its implementation as a coordinate system option and is just as easy to use as our normal NAD83 based systems. This helps provide less headache with data correlation to the client’s requirements and keeps the playing field closer to level.

    For surveyors, here’s the bottom line: our responsibility is to provide the client data in the most accurate and precise condition possible. Our profession needs to re-educate ourselves to better understand what the data collector is truly producing rather than relying on a wing and prayer that it meets the client’s needs.

    Think back to your early math class days; we spent many hours learning trigonometry functions by hand before we were turned loose with a calculator with sin, cos, and tan buttons. Learning longhand what was being produced helped us to understand how those complex calculations were completed.

    We need to think of this GPS data collection process in the same manner, and not just hope the “ghost in the machine” spits out the right numbers for the project. The worst thing you can tell a client is that you “think” the data is correct because you’re just not sure…

    BUT THERE IS GOOD NEWS…

    The good news for geographic data users in the United States is that the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) is working on a new datum that will incorporate radical new changes in combining horizontal and vertical datums. Visit the NGS website for more information. The initial framework sounds very robust and user-friendly, so keep your eyes and ears open for more details as they develop. I’m looking forward to the new system and so should surveyors everywhere.

    The problem sometimes with technology is that it moves forward so quickly  that good innovations get passed over due to previous acceptance and reluctance to upgrade (such as Sony Betamax, Microsoft Zune, etc.). This has been true with geodetic datums and the introduction of GPS for mainstream use. It will be an age-old issue, but I look forward to better and brighter days ahead.

    Now, where did I leave my trusty Junior Geodesist Secret Decoder Ring?

  • What really matters to GIS professionals

    MLD6

    Last week I attended a workshop sponsored by the Oregon GPS User’s Group (soon to be Oregon GNSS User’s Group). OGUG invited Michael Dennis, RLS, PE, current Ph.D. geomatics student, former full-time National Geodetic Survey (NGS) employee, all-around smart guy and entertaining speaker to present an all-day workshop entitled “Space Time and Datum Forensics – A Geodetic Workshop.” Let me tell you, its 260 slides of stuff that matters in GIS, surveying and GNSS if you’re working with data at the sub-meter level and better.

    The audience was largely surveyors, and that’s a problem. I’d go as far as saying that it’s significantly more important for GIS professionals to understand this topic than surveyors. The reason is because surveyors are project-oriented. For example, Joe Surveyor is hired to complete a boundary and topo survey for a new commercial real estate development project. He does the research, does the field work, completes the deliverables, issues an invoice, and places the project file into storage. Joe might look at the file again in six months when construction begins and may never look at it again after that.

    Surveyors are short-term, project-based data generators. On the other hand, GIS professionals are long-term data managers. Therefore, for surveyors, their data doesn’t require accuracy, it requires precision. On the other hand, GIS professionals value accuracy much more, or at least they should.

    The reason is because all the data layers in their GIS need to play together. GIS layers need to be spatially consistent. Managing a spatial and tabular-robust GIS database is a substantially more complex task than the typical surveyor encounters. Perhaps that complexity is one of the reasons that the spatial geodesy of a GIS database largely falls below the noise floor. In other words, there are much larger problems to tackle in a substantial GIS database other than geodesy.

    How many surveyors have ever had to deal with SAP databases? How about an SDE (how many of you had to Google the acronym)? How about writing a script that queries a MySQL database to extract features with particular attributes? That’s just the beginning.

    Before a surveyor criticizes a GIS for its accuracy, or lack thereof, that person should spend some time dealing with some of the data-management issues encountered by a GIS professional. There are entire conferences focused on only this subject. That’s what GIS is all about: data management, long-term data management.

    A GIS doesn’t get filed after every project is completed; it gets added to the last project, and with each project, the database grows larger, more unwieldy, and likely more difficult to manage. And then, someone or some company throws a curveball at them, a new schema, a new operating system, or a new enterprise GIS software version that impacts the entire database. The IT department gets involved, and then procurement gets involved. Before you know it, it’s meetings after meetings. You get the picture.

    Among all of the complex GIS database management issues, the geodesy of GIS has stayed below the noise floor. In other words, it’s been largely ignored. But as I’ve written in the past for GPS World magazine and this publication, GNSS, remote sensing and other sensors are becoming cheaper, faster and more precise. Therefore, data being appended to GIS databases are becoming more precise.

    This creates challenges by highlighting the legacy inaccurate or imprecise data in the GIS database, which in turn creates the necessity for another decision to be made: what should we do about it? The answer to that question is for another article, or three.

    With that, there are a few slides from Michael’s total of 260 slides in the workshop that I would like to highlight.

    His second slide is one my favorites. It’s a bit rhetorical in that there is no answer, but succinctly states the problem. The value of a GIS database is the relationship of spatial data amongst its elements. How close is the gas pipeline to the nearest home? Where’s the shut-off valve for main water line on First Street? Which homes will be at risk of flooding during a storm surge in Galveston, Texas? How fast will the latest virus likely spread if the first case is discovered in Atlanta vs. Nowhere, USA? GIS can answer these questions, but its answers are only as good as the data in the GIS. Good ol’ garbage-in, garbage-out.

    MLD1

    Before we get into the weeds, this is another setup slide that succinctly frames the challenge.

    MLD2

    To be clear, a coordinate system always includes a datum (a.k.a. geographic coordinate system, geometric reference system/frame), and it may or may not also include a map projection. Examples of projected coordinate systems include UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator), US SPC (State Plane Coordinates), Web Mercator (think Google Earth), Lambert Conformal Conic, and Gauss-Kruger for my European brethren. These systems must always include a specific datum. Common geodetic datums are ITRF08, IGS08, NAD83, NAD27, ED50, and WGS-84. You may have different map projections for each datum. For example, UTM or SPC can be referenced to NAD83. It’s a straight-forward mathematical operation to change the projection if the underlying datum is the same. However, UTM coordinates referenced to NAD83 or WGS-84 is a different subject altogether. Going to/from UTM/NAD83 to UTM/WGS-84 is far from being a straight-forward mathematical operation.

    The next feature slide gets into the weeds a bit. This is a subject I’ve written about for a few years and was somewhat highlighted in two articles I wrote (and a webinar I moderated) called “Nightmare on GIS Street.” How many of you think you use data referenced to WGS-84?

    MLD3

    MLD4

    WGS-84 referenced data is probably the most widely mis-used. As you can see from the above slide, the definition of WGS-84 has changed over time. You’ll never find a survey mark on the ground with coordinates referenced to WGS-84. If you do, it’s wrong. This is because it’s a military thing. WGS-84 is managed by the US Department of Defense. More specifically, the US National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (formerly NIMA, formerly DMA). Fortunately, in recent years, the Department of Defense has aligned WGS-84 with ITRF (International Terrestrial Reference Frame) — most recently to ITRF08 — and ITRF/IGS coordinates are publically available. For example, IGS08 (International GNSS Service of 2008) coordinates are published for NGS CORS and available in NGS OPUS solutions (for the purpose of this discussion we can consider ITRF and IGS the same). However,  there is a caveat: ITRF08/IGS08/WGS-84 coordinates are referenced to specific dates (epochs).

    WGS-84 was aligned with ITRF08 at epoch 2005.00, meaning that the WGS-84 coordinates were defined for the date of January 1, 2005. NGS publishes IGS08 coordinates at epoch 2005.00 for CORS. But OPUS solutions give IGS08 coordinates at the date of the GPS data file, and both autonomous and WAAS-corrected GPS gives positions at the mid-year epoch of the current year (i.e., positions are now at epoch 2016.5). This matters because stuff moves, including the ground you are standing on. Some places move more than others. California moves more than Missouri. Chile moves more than Germany. January 1, 2005 is 11+ years ago. If the ground is moving 3cm/yr, that’s 33cm over 11+ years. If you’re counting centimeters, that’s quite a few of them.

    Software vendors have a hard time keeping up with modern datum transformations, and this next slide is a perfect example of that. It’s not just one vendor. Nearly all software vendors “aren’t doing it right.” In this slide, this software vendor displays 10 different transformations from “WGS84” to “NAD83”. Which one do you use? None of them get it right.

    MLD5

    The most accurate one is still 20 cm in error. The worst is more than a meter in error. It makes you wonder why you spent $8,000 on that sub-foot GPS handheld when your GIS software may be introducing three feet of error.

    Finally, should you be concerned about this stuff?

    MLD6

    If you expect some of your data layers to be accurate to less than three meters, the answer is “yes.”

    I’ll likely continue this discussion next month or in the coming months,and also provide a link to Michael’s 260-page slideshow.

    Thanks, and see you next month.

    Follow me on Twitter at GPSGIS_Eric

  • Prime Meridian on the move

    Pre-GPS techniques actually responsible for the Greenwich shift

    By Stephen Malys, John H. Seago , Nikolaos K. Pavlis, P. Kenneth Seidelmann and George H. Kaplan

    The historical prime meridian runs through a telescope established in 1851 by Sir George Airy at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, England. It was adopted as an international standard as the prime meridian for zero longitude in 1884 during the International Meridian Conference held in Washington, D.C.

    The observatory’s line in the pavement is a major tourist attraction, but the prime meridian used by satellite navigation systems is located 102 meters east of that historic location (see Figure 1).

    Some people mistakenly thought that GPS, or the earlier Navy Navigation Satellite System (Transit), was responsible for this offset. But research, recently published in the Journal of Geodesy, concludes that the zero longitude used by GPS arrived at its current location in 1984, before GPS existed as an operational system.

    The orientation of the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84), and therefore the direction of the prime meridian associated with WGS 84, was established when the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency (now part of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) adopted the orientation of an international scientific standard known as BTS 84, the BIH Terrestrial System 1984.

    The Bureau International de l’Heure (BIH) was a predecessor to the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). Unlike previous terrestrial systems of reference used by the BIH, the BTS 84 was not established by tracking stars with optical telescopes.

    BTS 84. BTS 84 was created using geodetic techniques known as satellite laser ranging, lunar laser ranging and very long baseline interferometry. While satellite Doppler tracking (Transit) data was included in the BIH process, this data type did not contribute to or constrain the orientation of BTS 84.

    When an optical instrument is leveled, even to the highest accuracy achievable, its orientation is controlled by the gravity field’s vertical direction at that particular location.

    The astronomical zenith, or “up” direction realized by a telescope, is perpendicular to the gravity equipotential (level) surface locally, and therefore is in general deflected from the geodetic zenith that is perpendicular to our best-fitting global ellipsoid model of the Earth due to small irregularities of the gravity field (hence the term deflection of the vertical, DoV).

    As a consequence, the astronomical meridian plane at an arbitrary location on the Earth does not necessarily contain the center of mass of the Earth (FIGURE 2).

    FIGURE 2. Geometry showing why the Greenwich meridian moved.  Source: Stephen Malys, John H. Seago , Nikolaos K. Pavlis, P. Kenneth Seidelmann and George H. Kaplan
    FIGURE 2. Geometry showing why the Greenwich meridian moved.

    Astronomical Time. When optical systems were finally retired from Earth-orientation service by the BIH in 1984, the BIH continued the measurement series for Earth’s rotation by modern geodetic techniques, but required continuity in the determinations. These measurements included those for astronomical time, UT1.

    Requiring continuity in UT1 was equivalent to requiring that the plane of the prime meridian keep its orientation, relative to the celestial sphere, as a function of time. But now — for the first time — there was also a requirement to pass this plane through the center of mass of the Earth.That requirement, along with the DoV at Greenwich, moved the trace of the prime meridian on the Earth’s surface in the vicinity of Greenwich by 102 meters to the east of Airy’s telescope (Figure 2).

    Journey to the Center of the Earth.Thanks to satellite-tracking techniques, we now know the location of the center of mass of the Earth with an accuracy of about 1 centimeter in three dimensions — about the size of a U.S. dime.

    In 1984, its location was known with an accuracy of about 1 meter. When Airy set up his special telescope (called a transit circle), knowledge of the size, shape and center of mass of the Earth was limited to several hundred meters.

    The trace of the historical astronomical prime meridian established by Airy’s instrument, and the location of zero longitude indicated by GPS receivers, are both consistent with their own conventions, and their offset from each other does not imply an error in either determination.


    Stephen Malys and Nikolaos K. Pavlis work for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

    John H. Seago is with Analytical Graphics, Inc.

    P. Kenneth Seidelmann is a member of the Astronomy Department, University of Virginia.

    George H. Kaplan is a contractor with the United States Naval Observatory.