Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SABER Instrument Performance and Measurement Requirements.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SABER Instrument Performance and Measurement Requirements."— Presentation transcript:

1 SABER Instrument Performance and Measurement Requirements

2 SABER Instrument In-Orbit Performance Is Excellent 75 kg, 77 watts, 77 x 104 x 63 cm, 4 kbs - SABER instrument is performing in orbit as designed -FPA temperatures are being held steady at ~ 74K by the cooler -Cooler performance excellent and stable -Scan system is performing well -Noise performance is excellent -Data collection is routine No instrument anomalies Experiment Status

3 SABER Instrument Focal Plane Temperature Stability

4 SABER Instrument Refrigerator Cold Link Efficiency Trend

5 SABER Instrument Refrigerator Compressor Stroke Time Trend

6 SABER Instrument Limb Scan Mirror Subsystem Performance Scan mirror changes usually affect < ~ 100 scans per day and cause no data loss. No time trend evident. January 2002 to January 2003January 2003 to January 2004

7 ChannelParameter Jan 8, 2002 * April 25, 2002 * Jan 24, 2004 * 1CO2 N CO2 W CO2 W O H2O NO CO2 (4.3  m) OH(A) OH(B) O2( 1  ) SABER Noise Performance In-Orbit is Stable * RMS Counts Gains set to noise = 3 counts. All channels met or exceeded specifications. In-orbit performance slightly better than laboratory.

8 Parameter Altitude Range (km) Estimated Accuracy Mean Diff. With Correlative Data Correlative Data Source Temperature10 – K, km 4.0 K, km K Lidar, NCEP, GPS, HALOE O 3 (9.6  m) 15 – %, km 30%, km 30% Lidar, HALOE O 3 (1.27  m) 50 – 9520%, km30% HALOE H2OH2O15 – 80 20%, 15 – 70 km 30%, 70 – 80 km 30% HALOE CO 2 85 – 15030%, 95 – 140 km??% TIME-GCM *, CWAS rocket SABER temperature and constituent accuracies inferred from correlative data comparisons * Qualitative comparison only

9 Coincidence 0.4 hour 1 o latitude 2 o longitude SABER LTE Temperature Compared With Lidar at Mauna Loa on April 19, 2002

10 SABER and UKMO temperatures at 10 mb (~30 km) show close agreement SABERUKMO

11 SABER V1.04 mapped geopotential height and derived geostrophic winds at ~65 km February 5, 2002 February 12, 2002 Geopotential HeightGeostrophic Winds

12 Parameter Measurement Range Estimated Accuracy Observed Accuracy Current (Potential) OH(v), 1.06  m OH(v), 2.10  m 80 – 100 km3%, km 10%, km 10%(3%) ___(20%) O 2 ( 1  )* 50 – 105 km3%, km10%(3%) O3 (9.6  m) (Night) 15 – 100 km3%, km3-7% CO 2 (15  m) 15 – 120 km3%, 90 – 120 km3-7% km CO 2 (4.3  m) (Day) 85 – 150 km3%, 95 – 140 km3-5% * Applies to daytime, nighttime and twilight SABER Energetics (Energy Loss Rate) Accuracies Based on Laboratory and In-Flight Calibration Potential -High altitudes still contaminated by “hysteresis” and off-axis scatter. Corrections expected to reduce uncertainty to “potential” values

13 Parameter Measurement Range Estimated Precision Observed In-Orbit Precision Temperature10 – 100 km 0.5K, km 1K, km 2K, km 1K, km 2K, km 5K, km O 3 (9.6  m) 15 – 100 km 5%, km 20%, km 5%, km 20%, km O 3 (1.27  m) 50 – 95 km 10%, km 15%, km 10%, km 5%, km H2OH2O15 – 80 km 10%, km 25% km 10%, km 25% km CO km10%, km SABER Temperature and Constituent Estimated and Observed Precisions

14 Parameter Measurement Range Estimated Precision Observed In-Orbit Precision OH(v), 1.06  m OH(v), 2.10  m 80 – 100 km 0.5%, km 5%, km 1.0%, km 10%, km O 2 ( 1  ) 50 – 105 km 0.05%, km 0.2%, km 1%, 80 – 90 km 0.05%, km 0.2%, km 3.0%, 80 – 90 km O 3 (9.6  m) (Night) 15 – 100 km 0.5%, km 2%, km 1.2%, km 5.0%, km CO 2 (15  m) 15 – 120 km 3%, km5.0%, km NO90 – 180 km 3%, km 5%, 150 – 170 km 1.4%, km 5.0%, 150 – 170 km CO 2 (4.3  m) (Day) 85 – 150 km 10%, km4.0%, km (Day) SABER Energetics (Energy Loss Rate) Estimated and Observed Precisions

15 SABER Instrument understanding near a mature stage Substantial progress made in removing known artifacts arising due to instrument effects - Made important corrections to IFC BB emissivities; T, O 3, H 2 O - Knowledge of channel vertical alignment shown to be accurate -Moon scans provided excellent knowledge of off-axis signals due to FOV side lobes and mirror scatter - Detector focal plane ice build-up due to “trapped” water vapor “in-hand” - High altitude radiance bias in short wave channels; 20 x noise up, 7 x noise down scan - Possible O 3 spectral effect remaining

16 SABER Focal Plane Channel Locations # 4 O  m # 5 H 2 O 6.8  m # 2 CO 2 - W 15.0  m # 6 NO 5.3  m # 1 CO 2 - N 15.2  m # 3 CO 2 - W 15.0  m# 7 CO  m # 8 OH(A) 2.07  m# 9 OH(B) 1.64  m # 10 O 2 ( 1  ) 1.28  m 1.49 o 2 60 km

17 Effects of off-axis scatter on high altitude Signals in the OH and O2( 1  ) channels

18 SABER O 3 channel Lunar scan FOV Data

19 SABER CO 2 W channel Lunar scan FOV Data

20 SABER Lunar and Laboratory derived FOV functions LunarLaboratory

21 Calculated water ice transmission compared to observed SABER values 1  m thick ice layer

22 SABER CO 2 W Responsitivity Changes Since Launch

23 SABER responsivity slopes are steadily decreasing after each power down Responsivity slope Time

24 SABER Up and Down Scan Radiance Comparison for the O 2 ( 1  ) channel Date: , Orbit Channel 10 Day

25 SABER O 3 channel spectral response data Wavenumber cm -1 O 3 Relative Spectral Response


Download ppt "SABER Instrument Performance and Measurement Requirements."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google