## 3 Results
### Orbit Comparisons with GFZ Final Multi-GNSS Orbits
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline C38 & 4.7 & 15.3 & 8.8 & 10.5 \\ C39 & 4.3 & 14.2 & 8.3 & 9.8 \\ C40 & 4.7 & 15.4 & 8.9 & 10.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline C19 & 3.2 & 7.4 & 4.3 & 5.3 \\ C20 & 3.7 & 7.4 & 4.3 & 5.4 \\ C21 & 3.6 & 7.3 & 4.1 & 5.3 \\ C22 & 3.2 & 7.5 & 4.3 & 5.3 \\ C23 & 3.3 & 7.5 & 4.3 & 5.3 \\ C24 & 3.2 & 7.5 & 4.3 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**PRN of QZSS** & **Radial (cm)** & **Along (cm)** & **Cross (cm)** & **1-D (cm)** \\
**NONE GEOs** & & & & \\ \hline J01 & \(12.1\) & \(37.9\) & \(22.9\) & \(26.5\) \\ J02 & \(10.9\) & \(35.5\) & \(20.6\) & \(24.5\) \\ J03 & \(9.6\) & \(35.7\) & \(20.6\) & \(24.4\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Mean RMS value of QZSS NONE GEO satellites in comparison with GFZ final orbit. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**PRN of QZSS** & **Radial (cm)** & **Along (cm)** & **Cross (cm)** & **1-D (cm)** \\
**NONE GEOs** & & & & \\ \hline J01 & \(12.1\) & \(37.9\) & \(22.9\) & \(26.5\) \\ J02 & \(10.9\) & \(35.5\) & \(20.6\) & \(24.5\) \\ J03 & \(9.6\) & \(35.7\) & \(20.6\) & \(24.4\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Mean RMS value of QZSS NONE GEO satellites in comparison with GFZ final orbit. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**PRN of QZSS** & **Radial (cm)** & **Along (cm)** & **Cross (cm)** & **1-D (cm)** \\
**NONE GEOs** & & & & \\ \hline J01 & \(12.1\) & \(37.9\) & \(22.9\) & \(26.5\) \\ J02 & \(10.9\) & \(35.5\) & \(20.6\) & \(24.5\) \\ J03 & \(9.6\) & \(35.7\) & \(20.6\) & \(24.4\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Mean RMS value of Galileo satellites in comparison with GFZ final orbit. Figure 10: Time series in 1-D of BDS NONE GEO satellites compared with GFZ final orbit. Figure 9: Time series in 1-D of GPS satellites compared with GFZ final orbit. Figure 11: Time series in 1-D of GLONASS satellites compared with GFZ final orbit. Figure 12: Time series in 1-D of Galileo satellites compared with GFZ final orbit. The hourly ultrarapid orbit of GPS Week 2211 (from 22 May 2022 to 28 May 2022) are processed, and the mean RMS values of 2 h overlapping in the RAC components and 1-D for each constellation are demonstrated in Figures 15-19. As seen in Figures 15-19, the mean 1-D RMS value over the RAC components is approximately 1.6 cm, 6.9 cm, 3.2 cm, 2.7 cm, 1.8 cm and 22.2 cm for GPS, BDS IGSOs, BDS MEOs, GLONASS, Galileo and QZSS NONE GEOs, respectively. As for the radial component, the mean RMS is approximately 0.7 cm, 3.1 cm, 1.5 cm, 1.2 cm, 0.8 cm and 8.2 cm for GPS, BDS IGSOs, BDS MEOs, GLONASS, Galileo and QZSS NONE GEOs, respectively. The results of the hourly orbit boundary discontinuities for BDS and QZSS indicate that there still exist some mismodeled or unmodeled force errors which should be further investigated. Figure 14: A 2–h arc overlap comparison of two adjacent ultrarapid orbits. Figure 13: Time series in 1-D of QZSS NONE GEO satellites compared with GFZ final orbit. Figure 16: Mean RMS of overlapping in the RAC components and 1-D of BDS NONE GEO satellites. Figure 15: Mean RMS of overlapping in the RAC components and 1-D of GPS satellites. Figure 17: Mean RMS of overlapping in the RAC components and 1-D of GLONASS satellites. Figure 10:0 Mean RMS of overlapping in the RAC components and 1-D of Galileo satellites.