September 28, 2005 - NIST Workshop - Moon as a Standard for Satellite Sensor Calibration for Climate...

September 28, 2005 - NIST

Workshop - Moon as a Standard for Satellite Sensor Calibration for Climate Change

1

Summary of Proposal Work Done at UAH to Set the Lunar Flux

ScaleWorkshop on Satellite Calibration for

Climate Change Research

David B. Pollock



2

Topics

Status of absolute and relative lunar flux uncertainties?

How to improve the absolute accuracy of the Lunar flux (data to develop moon as a standard to meet the requirements of the climate change research)?

• Is there a need to extend lunar observations to the infrared and what are the benefits for climate change research.

Ideas to implement solutions to use moon as a standard• What other ancillary radiometric measurements could be

made and benefits could be derived while measuring the lunar flux from above the atmosphere?



3

Proposal Effort Summary

• Background• Work began as a proposal to NSF in response to Solicitation 04-

522, due 2/26/04.• 5 year cost estimate $3.9 M >> $2.5 M NSF cost limit.• Proposal halted 2/18/04.• Response from relevance inquires to NSF

– Very important, but not relevant the NSF 04-522 solicitation,

– Encouraged to discuss work with Atmos. Sci. Prgm. Mgr. Dr. Moyers

• Support dollars needed to keep team together while NSF customer courted.

• A plus-up from Congress would help.• No help found.



4

BLAIRBalloon Lunar Absolute Irradiance Radiometer

A $4M dollar research opportunity.

4/1/2004



5

Goal

• Uncertainty SI < 2% will begin to eliminate the deficiency of exo-atmospheric radiometric standards, 300 to 2400 nm spectral region.



6

2005 - Relative and AbsoluteLunar Flux Data Uncertainty

• The ROLO lunar data is stable to better than 0.1% *

• There is a significant wavelength dependent uncertainty 5 – 15% SI.

• There is a bias ~ 6% when compared to satellite instrument measurements.

* Hugh H. Kieffer et al, On-orbit Calibration Over time and Between Spacecraft Using the Moon, SPIE 4881.



7

Error Budgets

Instrumentation Total Uncertainty, 2,%

NIST 0.02

(TBD)XR 0.2

SDL 1.0

ALIR 1.5

ROLO Model (RSS) 1.8



8

Participants - Responsibilities

• UAH (CAO and ECE) - PI, Radiometer, Pointing and ground station

• HARC - Balloon launch and recovery

• SDL - Repeated calibrations

• TBE - Payload fab, integ & qual test

• USGS - Side-by-side measurements at ROLO and data analysis

• NASA GSFC - Peer review and critique.



9

CostsOTAL SALARIES, WAGES & FRINGE $ 207,703 $ 241,323 $ 390,385 $ 237,227 $ 215,802 $1,292,441

OPERATING EXPENSES

Freight $ 642 $ 482 $ 2,091 $ 3,215

Subcontracts** $ 161,632 $ 577,124 $ 343,920 $ 316,624 $ 438,122 $1,837,422

Travel $ 1,132 $ 1,132 $ 3,644 $ 7,624 $ 9,582 $ 23,114

Optical Filters $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000

Detectors $ - $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 162,764 $ 598,898 $ 367,564 $ 324,730 $ 449,795 $1,903,751

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 370,467 $ 840,221 $ 757,949 $ 561,957 $ 665,597 $3,196,192

Facilities & Administrative Costs, 45.5% MTDC*** $ 121,182 $ 119,709 $ 209,996 $ 111,627 $ 112,601 $ 675,115

Ź Ź Ź Ź Ź

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 491,649 $ 959,930 $ 967,945 $ 673,584 $ 778,198 $3,871,307

**Subcontracts: YR #1 YR #2 YR #3 YR #4 YR #5

1. TBE $ 105,332 $ 494,724 $ 195,720 $ 117,224 $ 96,840 $1,009,840

2. HARC $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 134,382 $ 139,382

3. USGS $ 48,800 $ 32,400 $ 45,700 $ 49,400 $ 61,900 $ 238,200

4. SDL $ 5,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 145,000 $ 450,000

5. NIST $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 200,000

TOTAL SUBCONTRACTS $ 161,632 $ 577,124 $ 343,920 $ 316,624 $ 438,122 $1,837,422



10

NSF Interest SolicitationNovember 4, 2004

Dr. Jarvis L. MoyersDivision DirectorDivision of Atmospheric Sciences, 775 S

RE: Letter of inquiry dated February 18, 2004

Dear Dr. Moyers,

Thank you for your response to the letter of inquiry February 18, 2004.

Would the NSF consider an un-solicited proposal for either a high altitude balloon or aircraft program to directly tie the RObotic Lunar Observatory, ROLO, Lunar Flux Model to the International System of Units via the NIST high accuracy cryogenic radiometer, the HACR. This work is to support past as well as future radiometric calibrations for space-based observations of climate parameters. An estimated total program cost is in the $4 to $5M range.

The basic concept is build as simple and as stable a filter radiometer as technologically feasible and gather statistically

significant data sets from above most of the atmosphere, with NIST calibration immediately before and after each flight. In addition to three to five flights, there would be initial and final concurrent observations at the ROLO site. A NIST transfer device would provide the traceable path to SI units via the HACR.

Specific programs that would benefit from this work include SeaWiFS, ASTER, MODIS, ALI, MTI, Hyperion, MISR, and any NPP or NPOESS instrument that can view the Moon, e.g., VIIRS; Figure 1.



11

Figure 1

(Data/Model -1) %, Average of Data per Instrument.

Thomas C. Stone, USGS & Hugh H. Kieffer, Celestial Reasonings



12

NSF ResponseProfessor Pollock,

If you have prepared your proposal in accordance with the guidelines in NSF 04 522then by all means go ahead and submit it by the published deadline. The accuracy ofatmospheric data used for atmospheric sciences research is also a matter of importance to us. You should be aware that this is likely to be a very competitivesolicitation as interest in this topic is currently very keen in the science and engineeringcommunities.

Jarvis Moyers



13

Notes from a conversation with Danny Ball, site manager at the National Scientific Balloon Facility on Friday, 16 April 2004.

1. A 75 kg payload carried to 25 km altitude is trivial.

2. The standard balloon sizes are 4 to 60 x 106 ft3 and anything smaller than 4 x 106

ft3 is a special.

3. Altitudes in the 25 to 30 km range are “small change”.

4. A 60 x 106 ft3 balloon will reach 45 km altitude and is 700 ft diameter.

5. A 60 x 106 ft3 balloon costs $180K and a 4 x 106 ft3 balloon costs $35K.

6. A 70 ft diameter parachute, for the smallest balloon payload, attaches directly to the balloon and is 110 ft long. There is a 65 ft cable ladder below the parachute. The payload attach point is the end of the ladder. If additional distance between the balloon and the payload is needed a second ladder can be added or a reel-down installed. The reel-down is 50 to 1000 ft in length.

7. A standard 4 x 106 ft3 balloon will carry a 200 kg payload to 33 km and the cost is $35K. A standard 4 x 106 ft3 balloon will lift up to 1500 kg.

8. A night launch out of Palestine in the June through August time period is routine.

9. There are no operational fees beyond the expendables. Expendables run about $50K per launch for a 4 x 106 ft3 balloon.



14

Notes Continued10. The 65 ft cable ladder provides torsional stiffness to push against for azimuth

rotation. Three arc-second pointing has been achieved hanging from a balloon.11. The atmospheric guys at JPL may have a payload frame we could borrow.12. There is a standard Consolidated Instrument Package available.

1. NSBF will track the payload.2. They will terminate the flight.3. They will recover the payload.4. The CIP will collect and record the data.5. The CIP can be used to send commands.

13. The NSBF requirements are 1. A stress analysis that shows the payload can survive 10 g vertically (parachute opening)

and 5 g @ 45° (landing),2. For a simple gondola, a hand calculation is adequate,3. An electronics compatibility test pre-launch.

14. Users outside the NASA community will be charged for expendables and a nominal user fee all payable to Wallops Island, VA.

15. The process to get on the NSBF schedule starts with a request for a Flight Request Form.



15

Topics

Status of absolute and relative lunar flux uncertainties? How to improve the absolute accuracy of the Lunar

flux (data to develop moon as a standard to meet the requirements of the climate change research)?

• Is there a need to extend lunar observations to the infrared and what are the benefits for climate change research.

Ideas to implement solutions to use moon as a standard• What other ancillary radiometric measurements could be

made and benefits could be derived while measuring the lunar flux from above the atmosphere?



16

Topics

• The problem

• Working on a solution



17

• Operational envelope• Critical parameters and functions

• Relative spectral response, in-, out-of-band. • Absolute response• Saturation response• Dark off-set• Non-linearity of response vs temperature• Relative response over field of regard• Distortion map over field of regard• Response vs array, electronics temperature• Focus (energy on a pixel)• Pixel fill-factor• Response to out-of-field-of-view sources• Gain normalization

• Repeated observations

Total Uncertainty“Truth”

Chambers 1 ~ 2%

Stars 1.5 ~ 2.5%

Moon 6 ~ 15%

Sun 0.1 ~ 2%

Terrestrial ~ 20%

A2 = P2 + B2 + (SNR)-2 + “T” 2

B

- Taylor, B.N., Kuyatt C. E., Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, NIST Technical Note 1297, 1994



18

Heuristic SI Traceability* Path

Reference sources

International System of Units, SIConvention of the Metre

Transfer radiometers

Remote sensors Orbital, Airborne, Terrestrial

Calibration sourcesSun, Moon, Stars, Terrestrial

National Measurement Institutes

* “Property of the result of a measurement … whereby it can be related to stated references… through an unbroken chain ofcomparisons all having stated uncertainties.” International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology (VIM), Estler, CALCON 2004 Workshop



19

Current Path

• Transfer measurements in situ.– A set of measurements of Vega at 0.5556 m.*

• Data analysis, multiple observers, instruments and sites.

*Hayes, Calibration of Fundamental Stellar Quantities, Proc. IAU Symposium No. 111 (1985)

Vega

Striplamp, hundredsof meters distant

Pt or Au point cavity,inside dome, aftertelescope optics.



20

Planned Path

• Polychromatic to span the ROLO range, 0.34 – 2.4 m.– Combined ROLO bands.

– Individual, fixed bandpass filters.

• HACR – (TBD)XR – MIC – ALIR• Joint ROLO & ALIR observations.• Repeated ground calibrations.• Analysis

ALIR @ 12 -45 km

Moon Stars

ROLO & ALIRSDL NIST - SI Units(TBD)XR



21

Topics

• The problem

• Working on a solution for the Lunar Irradiance



22

Rationale

• What – Reduce the ROLO Lunar Irradiance Model uncertainty.

• Why – Remote sensors are being tasked to produce ever more accurate data.

• How – Iterative calibrations, coupled with comparative measurements in the field and laboratory.

• Who – Trained, qualified participants.• When – Needed now.



23

ALIR

• Selectable band pass filters– Calibrated at NIST– Common to ROLO– Located near aperture stop

• High out-of-field light rejection– Hard field & aperture stops

• Internal reference source to monitor stability

Detectors

Entrance pupilField stop

Aperture stop

19 bandpass filters + BlankNear aperture stop

FOV = 0.5F No. = 10



24

ROLO Bands, 32Lunar Spectral Irradiance, 2° / 15°

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

300 800 1300 1800 2300 2800

Wavelength, nm

Sp

ectr

al I

rrad

ian

ce,

nW

/cm

^2-

nm

2°

15°



25

ROLO Bands Combined,19Combined Bands Spectral Irradiance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

300 800 1300 1800 2300 2800

Band center, nm

Sp

ecra

l Ir

rad

ian

ce,

nW

/cm

2 - n

m



26

Dynamic Measurement Range Small

Lunar flux dynamic range, 2° - 15°

1.00

1.50

2.00

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400

Wavelength, nm

Ra

tio



27

S/N, 1 cm Aperture, Selected - Combined ROLO Bands

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400

Wavelength, nm

S/N

Rat

io

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

Co

mb

ine

d b

an

d i

rrad

ian

ce

, W

/ c

m 2

Si Phototdiode

PV HgCdTe

Comb. Bands Irr.



28

Spurious Flux Control

1.E-20

1.E-17

1.E-14

1.E-11

1.E-08

1.E-05

1.E-02

Off-axis angle, deg

Fra

cti

on

, po

we

r

Total

Scatter

Diffraction

Field-of-view edge



29

Az-El Gimbals

Acquisition / Track

ALIR

ECI Position Data storage and transmission

Housekeeping

Command &Control

Flight System

Aircraft

Ground station

Balloon or



30

Estimated Parameters18-Jan-04

Part Power Part Perf.Kg lb w

Radiometer Walls 4.95 10.91 RadiometerEnd plates 1.20 2.65 Accuracy 0.10%Fittings 0.50 1.10 SensitivityInterior parts 2.00 4.41 OARLN2 (5 liter) 5.00 11.01 Spectral bands* 19

Total 13.65 30.07 0.5 Bandwidths* 8 to 58 nmOperating Temp

Electronics ResponsivityAmplifiers 1.00 2.20 Integration timesHousekeeping 1.00 2.20 Hold time at tempInterface 1.00 2.20 Detector materialsCmd / cntl 1.00 2.20 Spectral range* 320 to 2410 nmCables 1.00 2.20Communications 1.00 2.20Tracking 1.00 2.20 Gimbals

Total 7.00 15.42 10 Slew rateTrack rate

Pointing / Stabilization StabilityTrack tele. 2.00 4.41 Cage / un-cageGimbals 3.00 6.61

Total 5.00 11.01 20Track telescope

Balloon connections Field-of-viewSupport / release 5.00 11.01 OARParachute 5.00 11.01 Spectral band

Total 10.00 22.03 SensitivityAperture

Structure Track uncertaintyHardware 10.00 22.03Landing cushion 5.00 11.01

Total 15.00 33.04

PayloadTotal 50.65 111.57 30.50

Draft Requirements

Weight



31

ScheduleAdvanced Remote Sensing with BLAIRFebruary 23, 2004

Task Year 4.50 Fractional Year for computation 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.0 7.3 7.5 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.5 8.8 9.0 9.3

2004 Year: 2000+ 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 93 Quarter 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

Tasks1 System Performance Analysis (UAH, USGS, TBE, SDL, NIST) x x x

1.1 SI Traceability1.2 Requirements Definitions1.3 Specifications Flow Down1.4 Experiment Planning

2 Pointing & Control (UAH, ECE, TBE) x x x x x x x x x x2.1 Design / analysis / model / fabricate2.2 Gimbals (CAO, ECE , TBE)2.3 Acqusition & Tracking (ECE, CAO, TBE)

3 Electronic Packages (ECE, TBE) x x x x x x x x x x3.1 Design / analysis / model / fabricate3.2 Communication3.3 Data 3.4 Tracking3.5 Cables3.6 Housekeeping3.7 Payload Transmitter3.8 Ground Station Receiver

4 Flight System (HARC, CAO) x4.1 Design / analysis / model / specify4.2 Balloons for flight4.3 Release system4.4 Parachute system4.5 Landing system

5 Radiometer (CAO, USGS, NIST, SDL) x x x x x x x x x x5.1 Design / analysis / model / fabricate5.2 Fabricate (Engr & Flt)5.3 Engr Model Test at UAH / TBE x5.4 Ship Engineering Model to SDL x5.5 Ship Flight Model to SDL x

6 Calibration (SDL, NIST, CAO, USGS) x x x x x x x x x x x6.1 Planning6.2 On-site calibrations at NIST x6.3 On-site calibrations at SDL, 4 times x x x x

6.4 ROLO - ARS Simultaneous Observations x x

7 Payload (TBE) x x x x x x x x x x x x x7.1 Design / analysis / model / fabricate7.2 Integration7.3 Test

8 Operations (HARC, UAH, USGS) x x x8.1 Launch & Recovery8.2 Inflation supplies8.3 Transportation8.4 Travel

1 5432



32

Management PlanPoint Design for the Lunar Ballloon experiment Calendar

DaysSimple Schedule Who /Task Sum Cum

Specifiy mass and power for Radiometer DP 3.3 3.3Select detector type[s] 1SNR Calculations 0.5Decide how many bands 0.5Filter-wheel design 0.5

How is it driven. 0.5Decide on Optics and ApertureEstimate moment of inertia DP 0.3

last summed

Specify pointing requirements 2.5 5.8How close can GPS get? ? 0.5What is Balloon stability? BB 1What is radius of radiometer centering control? DP 0.5How well must radiometer point? DP 0.5

last summed

Moon locator [if needed] 3 8.8What layout? (Quadrent of triangles? CJ 1What detectors? DP 1What is feedback control? CJ 1

last summed

Pointing system 9 17.8will any COTS do? CJ 3

If so, specify CJ 1If not, design CJ 4

Estimate mass CJ 0.5Estimate power CJ 0.5

last summed

Electronics 2 19.8Define nominal flight plan DP 1

How much control from the ground "How much Autonomous "

Estimate data quantity DP 0.5What is stored on-board versus via telemetry " 0.2

Define Communications requirements " 0.3last summed

Payload & Structure 5 24.8Payload Power estimate DP 0.5

Estimate battery mass CJ 0.5Payload mass estimate DP 1

Ballon size required BB 3last summed

Assemble Proposal 5.5 30.3Write draft Calibration plan DP 2Decide on Engineering vrs Flight models DP,TS 0.5Write Science justification DP,HK 1

Application to spacecraft calibration HK,TS 0.5Discuss how results enter into the ROLO Irradiance model HK,TS 0.5Estimate Project Costs DP 1

last summed



33

Trained, Qualified Participants

• SI traceable path– NIST– Space Dynamics Laboratory– USGS

• Iterative flights– Balloon, National Scientific Balloon Facility – Aircraft, SOFIA

• Payload & Operations – UAH• Data Analysis – USGS, UAH• Peer review and critique – NASA GSFC



34

Activities• Stabilization, pointing and position.

– Alt-az gimbals w/ 1” pointing, build or borrow.– GPS and lunar ephemeris from vehicle.

• Balloon, routine– > 25 km w / a 4 x 106 ft3 volume. – 70 ft diameter by 110 ft long parachute. – Payload attached to the end of 65 ft cable ladder below the parachute.– Added distance between balloon - payload possible w / a second ladder or a

1000’ reel-down. • Aircraft SOFIA.

– 12.5 – 13.5 km– 3+ years away

• Repeated pre-, post-flight Sensor calibrations.• Concurrent observations w / ROLO telescopes in Flagstaff.• Data reduction and error analysis

– Statistically significant data set– 100 s data on 30 successive days or 100 s on 12 selected days / year

• Ingest archive data



35

Conclusion

• A relatively small, < 5 cm aperture, well baffled, <10-11 @ 1, multi-spectral, 340 – 2,400 nm radiometer, limited dynamic range, <2, is feasible.

• Setting the ROLO Model scale < 2% is a reasonable task.



36

Backup Charts



37

Reducing the RObotic Lunar Observatory (ROLO) Irradiance

Model Uncertainty SI David B. Pollock1, Thomas C. Stone2, Hugh H. Kieffer3, Joe P. Rice4

1. The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, OB 422, Huntsville, AL 35899

2. U.S. Geological Survey, 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 860013. Celestial Reasonings, 2256 Christmas Tree Lane, Carson City, NV 897034. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8441,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8441

This page and the next as well as many of the preceding pages are from the CALCON Presentation of August 26, 2004.



38

AbstractThere is a fundamental remote sensing problem, the inability to identify and to correct biases to the

level that current sensor technology permits once a sensor becomes operational in-orbit. This paper presents a concept, retrieval and recalibration of a transfer standard, to reduce in the longer term the uncertainty of the flux from the stars, the solar flux and vicarious sources on the earth using the RObotic Lunar Observatory, ROLO, Irradiance Model as the basis for a technology demonstration. The cause of the fundamental remote sensor problem is the uncertainty of the respective fluxes traced to the International System of Units, SI. This includes the sensors relative to the U. S. Global Climate Change Research Program (U.S. GCRP), sensors for NASA, NOAA, TVA, DoD, DOE, HHS, NSF, USDA, DOI and EPA. An effort to solve this fundamental problem began about 7 years ago with the emergence of the problem at a NIST Workshop in the fall of 1997 and stated in NIST GCR 98-748, High Accuracy Space Based Remote Sensing Requirements, March 1998. Since then there has been expanding recognition and discussion of this remote sensing deficiency at National and International conferences and workshops. Remote sensor data shows that remote sensors are on the order of 4 to 5 times more stable than the uncertainty of either the spectral or total radiant flux from the moon, the stars and the sun. The consequence is data uncertainty increases because there are not adequately uncertain calibration sources available to remove the remote sensor biases that arise during operations. The concept presented by this paper when implemented would begin an effective, systematic attack on the larger problem, the stars, the sun and terrestrial, by attacking a most glaring deficiency of the recognized, accepted ROLO Lunar Irradiance model. Although the lunar data is stable to better than 0.1% there is a significant wavelength dependent uncertainty on an absolute scale thought to be on the order of 5 – 15% SI. A bias of up to 6% is found when results are compared to satellite instrument measurements. Reducing this uncertainty SI will begin to eliminate the deficiency of exo-atmospheric radiometric standards specifically for those remote sensors that can use the lunar flux over the 300 to 2300 nm spectral region for calibration.

Date post:	13-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	margaretmargaret-hawkins
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

September 28, 2005 - NIST Workshop - Moon as a Standard for Satellite Sensor Calibration for Climate...

Documents