Talk:GRACE and GRACE-FO

message: I also noted this on the Gravity on Earth (talk) page.
Looking at the GRACE project Geoid, I quickly noticed that the highest gravity is at the mountain ranges (Andes, Rockys, Himalayans, etc.). This would be the gravity as seen from space which would include the highest mountain peaks (more rock), and parts of the planet closest to the satellite.
The problem is that the gravity experienced at the surface of the earth is also dependent on the distance from the center of the Earth. So, the gravity experienced at the surface of the earth from the highest peaks is actually LOWEST. In fact, in the Gravity on Earth page, it says that the gravity at the peak of Mt. Everest decreases by 0.28%, or 9.8 m/s2 --> 9.77 m/s2.
The Grace Geoid also doesn't seem to take into account the Centrifugal effects on gravity as experienced in the equatorial regions, or the effects of the "bulge" which effectively increases the altitude in the equatorial regions.--Keelec (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Wikipedia is not a source of original research, so unless you find secondary sources discussing the same thing, it's pretty much moot. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

text: It doesn't show gravity, it shows gravity anomaly. But, ditto above, without secondary sources - -original research. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacy of the GRACE Project, Gravity from Space not the same as Gravity on surface of the planet. 

message: GOCE has a Mission objectives section which states the expected accuracy of measurements. It would be great if this article on GRACE also had, so we can more easily compare the missions. - Rod57 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission objectives to compare with GOCE 

message: GRACE is this basis for improved mass-balance estimates for Antarctica and Greenland in the IPCC AR5; we should add that here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AR5 

message: If ocean bottom pressure is "as important to oceanographers as atmospheric pressure is to meteorologists", why don't we have an article on it? 23.233.82.54 (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean bottom pressure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306140004/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515114041/http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/overview.html to http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/overview.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091117191955/http://www.gpsworld.com/government/natural-resources/instrument-grace-782 to http://www.gpsworld.com/government/natural-resources/instrument-grace-782
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150613230457/http://www.dm.unipi.it/cluster-pages/tommei/mc/Lensenature03007.pdf to http://www.dm.unipi.it/cluster-pages/tommei/mc/Lensenature03007.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/press_centre/airbus-defence-and-space-to-build-two-new-research-satellites-for-nasa.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello, 
What do you think about the following edits?
"...atmospheric reentry of GRACE-1 is predicted to occur in late February 2018." >> "...atmospheric reentry of GRACE-1 is predicted to occur in March, 2018." [2]
"During normal operations, the satellites were separated by approximately 200 km along their orbit track." >> "During normal operations, the satellites were separated by 220 km along their orbit track. This system was able to gather global coverage every 30 days." [3]
"Scientists use GRACE data to estimate ocean bottom pressure—as important to oceanographers as atmospheric pressure is to meteorologists." >> "Scientists use GRACE data to estimate ocean bottom pressure (the combined weight of the ocean waters and atmosphere), which is as important to oceanographers as atmospheric pressure is to meteorologists [use same citation]. For example, measuring ocean pressure gradients allows scientists to estimate monthly changes in deep ocean currents.[4] The limited resolution of GRACE is acceptable in this research because the ocean currents are so large, and because deep ocean current estimates can be verified by an ocean buoy network. [5] Scientists have also detailed improved methods for using GRACE data to describe Earth's gravity field (Watkins, et al, 2015).[6]"
Thanks!
Emcon789 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've already updated the reentry for GRACE-1, occurred on 10 March 2018. I'll link your draft so people can see the references. The other points look good too. After you make your edits, I'll tidy up and fully format the citations. If you ever have any questions about Wiki, formatting, standards, whatever, just let me know. Same goes for your classmates. You'll find plenty of folks around the spaceflight community that will prove helpful. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Emcon789 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

text: These look like solid additions to the information. I'm glad you added some more background info on ocean bottom pressure, that was definitely necessary. Wike4167 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: This all looks good. One tiny thing is that I think for grammar's sake you should change the last sentence to "The mission will track changes in global sea levels, glaciers, and ice sheets, as well as large lake and river water levels, and soil moisture." Emcon789 (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: These look like valuable contributions, except for the addition about the size of a tenth of a micron. It would not hurt the article, but I don't think it is necessary because of the current size comparison already being there. I also agree with Emcon's comment about grammar additions. Wike4167 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Good elaboration. Some small suggestions: "Data from GRACE has improved the current Earth gravitational field model, leading to improvements in the field of geodesy. This improved model has allowed for corrections in the equipotential surface from which land elevations are referenced. This more accurate reference surface allows for more accurate coordinates [maybe be more specific than 'more accurate coordinates'?] and for less error in the calculation of geodetic satellite orbits." Emcon789 (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: My suggestions would be the same as Emcon789's otherwise I think you did a nice job. I'm not sure if I would add this to the section of "Other Signals," though. It kind of matches that content but may or may not need a new section of its own. Bamsberry (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Edits (March 2018) 

message: "Wavefront sensing" is linked to an existing stub article which lists 9 different types.  It would be useful for this article to describe the particular type installed on the satellites.71.230.16.111 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a citation which has all the relevant information.  It isn't clear from the description there that any of the "wavefront sensing" links describe the system used by GRACE-FO, so I removed the wavefront sensing wikilink. But I don't care that much if someone wants to put it back. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  differential wavefront sensing