24
October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, CO GOES User Conference II Al Gasiewski NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory Boulder, CO, USA David Staelin Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA, USA Bizzarro Bizzarri CNR Istituto Scienze dell’Atmosfera e del Clima (ISAC) Rome, Italy

Al Gasiewski NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory ... Users' Conference II/Gasiewski/GE… · Al Gasiewski NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory Boulder, CO, USA ... IGARSS,

  • Upload
    lethuan

  • View
    214

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Al GasiewskiNOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory

Boulder, CO, USA

David StaelinMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA, USA

Bizzarro BizzarriCNR Istituto Scienze dell’Atmosfera e del Clima (ISAC)

Rome, Italy

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GMSWG� Concept SummaryGEosynchronous Microwave (GEM) Sensor

• Baseline system using 54, 118, 183, 380, and 424 GHz with ~2-meter diameter aperture.

• ~16 km subsatellite resolution (~12 km using oversampling) above 2-5 km altitude at highest frequency channels.

• The 380 and 424 GHz channels selected to map precipitation through most optically opaque clouds at sub-hourly intervals.

• Temperature and humidity sounding channels penetrate clouds sufficiently to drive NWP models with hourly data.

• Estimated 2002 costs: $31M non-recurring plus ~$28M/unit.

Azimuth Motor& Compensator

Elevation Motor& Compensator

Nodding / MorphingSubreflector

Space Calibration Tube

BackupStructure

3” Thick Composite Reflector

54GHz Feeds &

Receivers

* Geosynchronous Microwave Sounder Working Group, Chair: D.H. Staelin (MIT)

Estimated Mass ~65 kg

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GEM Spectral SelectionTotal 43 channels in 5 bands

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

−0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.150

10

20

30

40118.7503 GHz

Alti

tud

e (

km)

Temperature IWF (km−1)

15−21

29−41

70−90

150−250300−500500−900

900−1300← 1300−1700

← 1700−2500← 2500−3500

4000−6000↓

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.250

10

20

30

40424.7631 GHz

Alti

tud

e (

km)

Temperature IWF (km−1)

25−35

60−80

120−180

250−350500−700800−12001200−1800

3500−4500

−2 0 2 4 60

5

10

15

20150−450

650−11501300−20002500−35004000−6000

← 6000−8000

15000−19000

183.3101 GHz

Alti

tud

e (

km)

Water Vapor IWF (K km−1)

−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.50

5

10

15

2030−60

300−500

1250−1750

3550−4450

8000−1000017000−19000↑

380.1974 GHz & 340 GHzA

ltitu

de

(km

)

Water Vapor IWF (K km−1)

336−344 GHz Klein & Gasiewski, JGR-ATM, July 2000.

Clear-air incementalweighting functions

O2118.750 GHz424.763 GHz

H2O 183.310 GHz380.197/340

AMSU5-MM

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Mari???

Midlatitude (30-60o) annual atmosphereNadir view

1 opticaldepth 2 optical

depths

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Similar Channel (183 / 325 GHz) Response to Clouds

Gasiewski, TGARS, 1992

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GEM Spatial Resolution

� 3-dB best resolution degrades by ~1.3x to ~21 km at 50o latitude.� Oversampling by ~2x above Nyquist expected to recover ~30-40% of this lost

resolution for high SNR cases.

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GEM Sensitivity & Scan Mode

Assumptions: • Averaging (downsampling) of beams to fundamental

deconvolved resolution.• * Further reductions in �TRMS achievable via additional

downsampling and/or time averaging.

• CONUS imaging time (3000 x 5000 km2) : 90 minutes

• Regional (1500 x 1500 km2) : 12-15 minutes

0.4-0.61.0-9.5 *~1216.4424.7630.3-0.50.03-3.4 *~1620.5380.1530.3-0.60.06-0.2�~3141.9183.3100.1-0.60.07-0.9 ~~4560.2118.7050.1-0.60.04-0.1 �~104138.650-56

�TRMSRequired

(K,SNR=100)

�TRMS(K)

DeconvolvedResolution(km, SSP)

3-dB IFOV(km, SSP)

Band(GHz)

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference IIMM5/MRT Reisner 5-phase with DO RT model at 424.763+/-4.0 GHz

Hurricane Bonnie August 26, 1998 1500 UTC

Regional Scan Mode (1500 x 1500 km2)

Resolution ~6 km

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Spectral Response

Opaque

Transparent+/-0.6 GHz

+/-1.0 GHz

+/-1.5 GHz

424.763+/-4.0 GHz

Hurricane Opal1995

MM5/MRTReisner 5-phase

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GEM Jacobian for Radiance Assimilation

MM5/MRT Reisner 5-phase with DO RT model at 424.763+/-4.0 GHz

Discrete-Ordinate fast Jacobian for real-time

calculation of .�TB

�pi

�TB

��s

Hurricane Bonnie, August 26, 1998, 1500 UTC

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GEM Jacobian for Radiance Assimilation

MM5/MRT Reisner 5-phase with DO RT model at 424.763+/-4.0 GHz

Discrete-Ordinate fast Jacobian for real-time

calculation of .�TB

�pi

�TB

��a

Hurricane Bonnie, August 26, 1998, 1500 UTC

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GEM Jacobian for Radiance Assimilation

MM5/MRT Reisner 5-phase with DO RT model at 424.763+/-4.0 GHzHurricane Bonnie, August 26, 1998, 1500 UTC

Discrete-Ordinate fast Jacobian for real-time

calculation of .�TB

�pi

�TB

�T

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

AMSU Precipitation Retrievals

NOAA-15 AMSU with neural net retrieval, 50 km resolution

Staelin & Chen, IEEE TGARS, September 2000.

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Rapid Precipitation EvolutionMarch 5-6 2001 snowstorm observed using AMSU-B

4 and 8 hr time gaps

Major evolution can occur on short time scales!

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Maritime convection observed at 20 km altitude.

Many cells missedat 89 GHz!

~200

km

Gasiewski, et al, Proc. 1994 IGARSS, Pasadena, USA.

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

PSR/CX: 5.82-6.15 (v,h) 10o

1999 (C) 6.32-6.65 (v,h) 10o

6.75-7.10 (v,h,U,V) 10o

7.15-7.50 (v,h) 10o

2002 (CX) 10.6-10.8 (v,h,U,V) 7o

10.68-10.70 (v,h) 7o

9.6-11.5 um IR (v+h) 7o

PSR/S: 18.6-18.8 (v,h,U,V) 8o

~2002- 21.4-21.7 (v,h) 7o H2O 2003 36-38 (v,h,U,V) 7o

52.6-57.5x7 (v) 3.5o O286-92 (v,h,U) 3.5o

118.750 x 7 (v) 3.5o O2183.310 x 7 (v) 1.8o H2O325.153 x 3 (v) 1.8o H2O337-343 (v,h,U) 1.8o

380.197 x 5 (v) 1.8o H2O 424.763 x 5 (v) 3.5o O2496-504 (v,h) 1.8o

9.6-11.5 um IR (v+h) 1.8o

CX

VIR5.8 -7.5 &

10.7 GHz

GEM Airborne SimulatorPSRCX and PSR/S Scanhead Suite

& Aircraft Compatibility

V

IRS

18/21

50-5937

89 118

183

340325380

424

500

21

AirPlatforms’ Canberra B6

21

NASA DFRC ER-2

1

Scaled Composites’ Proteus

1 2

NASA WB-57F

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Main Beam Microscanning

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

On- AxisBeam

Azimuth (deg)

Rel

ativ

e G

ain

(dB

)

5 beam scan (0.14o) at 424 GHz from tilting/decentering subreflector and 2-m reflector (MIT/Lincoln Labs)

Concept design of GEM antenna with tilting/decentering subreflector(Ball ATC)

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Assumptions: GEM recurring cost of $30M + $60M bus & launch = $90MTMI-class passive drone cost of $10M + $30M bus+launch = $40M3 NPOESS + GPM PR as GPM baseline system – costed as fixed3 GEMs required for global tropical/midlatitude coverage

#Additional Drones Repeat Time Cost ($M)1 2.4 (hrs) 402 2.0 80 Single HS cost break-point3 1.7 1204 1.5 1605 1.3 2006 1.2 240 Global cost break-point7 1.1 2808 1.0 3209 55 (mins) 36010 51 40015 38 60020 30 80025 25 1000 30 21 120035 18 140040 16 1600

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Recent U.S. GEM Proposals

• Geostationary Microwave (GEM) Observatory –Concept proposal to NASA/HQ in response to InstrumentIncubator Program AO – Based on 2-meter antenna andchannels at 54/118/183/380/424 GHz (Staelin et al, 1998).

• EO-3 Geosynchronous Microwave (GEM) ObservatoryNew Millennium proposal submitted by NOAA/ETL,NASA/GSFC, MIT/LL to NASA/HQ. Based on a GEMdemonstration unit with spatial resolution of 13-20 km, 2-meter antenna (Gasiewski et al, 1998).

• GEosynchronous Microwave (GEM) PrecipitationSounder – Phase B proposal submitted by NASA/LaRC,NOAA/ETL, MIT/LL to NASA/HQ Instrument IncubatorProgram. Focused on antenna technology developmentand demonstration (Lawrence et al, 2001).

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

Recent U.S. GEM Proposals(cont’d)

• Geosynchronous Microwave (GEM) Observatory forHydrological Imaging and Profiling – Technologydevelopment proposal to NASA/HQ in response toInstrument Incubator Program AO – Based on 2-meterantenna and channels at 54/118/183/380/424 GHz(Gasiewski et al, 2002). Includes industry-baseddevelopment of prototype microscanning subreflector.

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GEM Roadmap to Operations

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

GOMAS Proposal to ESA� Proposal to ESA Earth Explorer Opportunity Missions:“Geostationary Observatory for MicrowaveAtmospheric Sounding” – submitted Jan 2002.

� PI: B. Bizzarri, many European and U.S. partners.

� Based on U.S. GEM baseline design, but free flyer withlarger antenna (3-m) to compensate for application athigher European latitudes (antenna cost ~d2.5).

� 3-year science demo phase, 5-yr design lifetime, 10 kmbest resolution w/o deconvolution, 15 minute bestupdate. Launch ~2008+, cost 160 M€ total, includingground segment

� To be considered for further scientific and technolog-ical study within ESA

October 1-3, 2002 Boulder, COGOES User Conference II

• GEM will be a cost-effective AMSU-like sounder/imager but with time-resolved observations of precipitation –complementary to HES, GIFTS.

• GEM concept study completed, antenna and scanning technology under development (MIT/LL, NOAA/ETL)

• Convective PR anticipated to be measurable over both land and water along with sounding products within clouds, ~15 km midlatitude spatial resolution.

• Demonstration of operational system possible within GPM and NPOESS timeframe. GOES R+ ~2012+ (?)

• Aircraft demonstrations under development (NOAA, MIT)

• European GOMAS concept proposal submitted to ESA (Jan 2002), GOMAS science studies planned (2003).

• RT model and retrieval simulations in progress (NOAA)