The Landsat suite of satellites has collected the longest continuous archive of multispectral data of any land-observing space program. From the Landsat program's inception in 1972 to the present, the Earth science user community has benefited from a historical record of remotely sensed data. However, little attention has been paid to ensuring that the data are calibrated and comparable from mission to mission, Launched in 1982 and 1984 respectively, the Landsat 4 (L4) and Landsat 5 (L5) Thematic Mappers (TM) are the backbone of an extensive archive of moderate resolution Earth imagery. To evaluate the "current" absolute accuracy of these two sensors, image pairs from the L5 TM and L4 TM sensors were compared. The approach involves comparing image statistics derived from large common areas observed eight days apart by the two sensors. The average percent differences in reflectance estimates obtained from the L4 TM agree with those from the L5 TM to within 15 percent. Additional work to characterize the absolute differences between the two sensors over the entire mission is in progress.
Accurate calibration of x-ray observatories has proved an elusive goal. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies amongst on-ground measurements, differences between on-ground and in-space performance, in-space performance changes, and the absence of cosmic calibration standards whose physics we truly understand have precluded absolute calibration better than several percent and relative spectral calibration better than a few percent. The philosophy "the model is the calibration" relies upon a complete high-fidelity model of performance and an accurate verification and calibration of this model. As high-resolution x-ray spectroscopy begins to play a more important role in astrophysics, additional issues in accurately calibrating at high spectral resolution become more evident. Here we review the challenges of accurately calibrating the absolute and relative response of x-ray observatories. On-ground x-ray testing by itself is unlikely to achieve a high-accuracy calibration of in-space performance, especially when the performance changes with time. Nonetheless, it remains an essential tool in verifying functionality and in characterizing and verifying the performance model. In the absence of verified cosmic calibration sources, we also discuss the notion of an artificial, in-space x-ray calibration standard. 6th
the 16 percent solution by joel moskowitz pdf.rar
Download File: https://9brahefprotho.blogspot.com/?hn=2vFn4s
The Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) has been developed to be an operational instrument on the GOES-R series of spacecraft. The GLM is a unique instrument, unlike other meteorological instruments, both in how it operates and in the information content that it provides. Instrumentally, it is an event detector, rather than an imager. While processing almost a billion pixels per second with 14 bits of resolution, the event detection process reduces the required telemetry bandwidth by almost 105, thus keeping the telemetry requirements modest and enabling efficient ground processing that leads to rapid data distribution to operational users. The GLM was designed to detect about 90 percent of the total lightning flashes within its almost hemispherical field of view. Based on laboratory calibration, we expect the on-orbit detection efficiency to be closer to 85%, making it the highest performing, large area coverage total lightning detector. It has a number of unique design features that will enable it have near uniform special resolution over most of its field of view and to operate with minimal impact on performance during solar eclipses. The GLM has no dedicated on-orbit calibration system, thus the ground-based calibration provides the bases for the predicted radiometric performance. A number of problems were encountered during the calibration of Flight Model 1. The issues arouse from GLM design features including its wide field of view, fast lens, the narrow-band interference filters located in both object and collimated space and the fact that the GLM is inherently a event detector yet the calibration procedures required both calibration of images and events. The GLM calibration techniques were based on those developed for the Lightning Imaging Sensor calibration, but there are enough differences between the sensors that the initial GLM calibration suggested that it is significantly more sensitive than its design parameters. The calibration discrepancies have 2ff7e9595c
Comments