1 / 22

Fourth GOES Users’ Conference May 2, 2006 Broomfield, Colorado

Advanced Technologies for the GOES-R Series and Beyond: Medium Earth Orbits (MEO) as a Venue for Polar Wind Measurements and Geo Microwave – No Moving Parts. Fourth GOES Users’ Conference May 2, 2006 Broomfield, Colorado. Gerald Dittberner (NOAA), Ph.D., CCM, FRMetS

connie
Download Presentation

Fourth GOES Users’ Conference May 2, 2006 Broomfield, Colorado

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Advanced Technologies for the GOES-R Series and Beyond: Medium Earth Orbits (MEO) as a Venue for Polar Wind Measurements and Geo Microwave – No Moving Parts Fourth GOES Users’ Conference May 2, 2006 Broomfield, Colorado Gerald Dittberner (NOAA), Ph.D., CCM, FRMetS Advanced Systems Planning Division NOAA Satellite and Information Service Poster 54

  2. MEOMedium Earth OrbitforContinuous Polar Winds This work was performed by Andrew J. Gerber, Jr., David M. Tralli, and Francois Rogez, Jet Propulsion Laboratory The California Institute of Technology With support from NOAA

  3. The Grand Vision • Measure anywhere on the globe, anytime, with any repeat time, and distribute data to anywhere in near real time

  4. MEO Orbit Basics

  5. Roadmap to the Future:Transition Stages Today • Today • 3 LEO Polar • 5 GEO (2 U.S.) • Step 1: MEO Demonstration • 3 LEO Polar • 1 MEO Polar • 5 GEO • Step 2: MEO-GEO Constellation • 3 LEO Polar satellites • 4 MEO Polar Satellites • 5 GEO Satellites Tech Devel & Polar Winds Demo Full Polar Winds & Current GEOs A MEO-GEO-LEO Constellation Fulfilling NOAA’s Evolving Data Needs

  6. Step 2 – MEO-GEO ConstellationConcept Complete set of 4 MEO in 90 Degree orbit Continuous Polar Winds Risk Reduction Full Global Coverage (4-pi Steradian) Complements International Geo Ring Supports GEOSS • MEO-GEO Constellation: • 3 LEO Polar satellites • 4 MEO Polar Satellites • 5 GEO Satellites

  7. Step 2 – MEO-GEO ConstellationCoverage of Pole and Northern Europe Any location continuously visible by one or more MEO or GEO satellites

  8. Percent Time Target in View 4 MEO

  9. GeoSTARA Microwave SounderforGEO Orbit This was performed by: Bjorn Lambrigtsen (Lead), Shannon Brown, Steve Dinardo, Pekka Kangaslahti, Alan Tanner, and William Wilson of The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; Jeff Piepmeier, GSFC; and Chris Ruf, U. Michigan That was partially funded by NOAA

  10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California GeoSTAR A Microwave Sounder for GOES-R

  11. GeoSTAR System Concept • Concept • Sparse array employed to synthesize large aperture • Cross-correlations -> Fourier transform of Tb field • Inverse Fourier transform on ground -> Tb field • Array • Optimal Y-configuration: 3 sticks; N elements • Each element is one I/Q receiver, 3 wide (2 cm @ 50 GHz) • Example: N = 100  Pixel = 0.09°  50 km at nadir (nominal) • One “Y” per band, interleaved • Other subsystems • A/D converter; Radiometric power measurements • Cross-correlator - massively parallel multipliers • On-board phase calibration • Controller: accumulator -> low D/L bandwidth Receiver array & Resulting uv samples Example: AMSU-A ch. 1

  12. Measurement Requirements • Radiometric sensitivity • Must be no worse than AMSU (≤ 1 K) • Spatial resolution • At nadir: ≤ 50 km for T; ≤ 25 km for q • Spectral coverage • Tropospheric T-sounding: Must use 50-56 GHz • Note: Higher frequencies (118 GHz, etc.) cannot penetrate to the surface everywhere (e.g., tropics) • Bottom 2 km (PBL) is the most important/difficult part and must be adequately covered • Tropospheric q-sounding: Must use 183 GHz (AMSU-B channels) • Note: Higher frequencies (325 or 450 GHz) cannot penetrate even moderate atmospheres • Convective rain: 183 GHz (AMSU-B channels) method proven • “Warm rain”: 89 + 150 GHz (Grody) - maybe 50+150 • Temporal coverage from GEO • T-sounding: Every hour @ 50 km resolution or better • Q-sounding: Every 30 minutes @ 25 km resolution or better

  13. GeoSTAR Prototype Development • Objectives • Technology risk reduction • Develop system to maturity and test performance • Evaluate calibration approach • Assess measurement accuracy • Small, ground-based • 24 receiving elements - 8 (9) per Y-arm • Operating at 50-55 GHz • 4 tropospheric AMSU-A channels: 50.3 - 52.8 - 53.71/53.84 - 54.4 GHz • Implemented with miniature MMIC receivers • Element spacing as for GEO application (3.5 ) • FPGA-based correlator • All calibration subsystems implemented Now undergoing testing at JPL! Performance so far is excellent

  14. Solar Transit: Reconstructed Tb Images Sun is about 4000 K in this 50-GHz channel Times in PDT

  15. Accommodation Studies Array arms folded for launch Stowed in Delta fairing Deployed on-orbit Ball Aerospace

  16. Backup Charts

  17. The Molniya Orbit: Northern Points =180 degrees apart Anchorage* ~150 Deg W Helsinki ~ 30 E *Launch to ensure coverage of Alaska and N. Europe

  18. Spacecraft: 3 equ + 3 pol Planes: 2Inclination: 0 / 90deg Altitude: 10.4k kmSeparation: 120 deg each orbitElevation Limit: 5 deg FR 20050311 NGOESS Robustness 24 Hour Average Cover Percent With only 3 Satellites Operational in Each Orbit Plane Epoch: 1998/09/10 22:02:52 24hr Average Coverage Percent

  19. Still

  20. Radial Resolution: As a Function of Ground Range

  21. ‘Perpendicular to Radial’ Resolution: As a Function of Ground Range

  22. Notes on Resolution • The two previous slides show that the distortion of a pixel in the radial direction is a different function of elevation angle than is the distortion in the perpendicular direction. • However, at a given ground elevation angle, the pixel aspect ratio (see box to the right), is constant, and not a function of altitude • Therefore, the distortion of a pixel as a function of altitude in one direction (e.g. Radial) is proportional to distortion in the other (i.e. Perpendicular) Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) PAR = Radial/Perpendicular @ Nadir PAR = 1.00 20 deg El. PAR = 2.92 5 deg El. PAR= 11.5

More Related