DOCSLIB.ORG

Copernicus Sentinel-1 Satellites: Sensitivity of Antenna Offset Estimation to Orbit and Observation Modelling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Adv. Geosci., 50, 87–100, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-50-87-2020 © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellites: sensitivity of antenna offset estimation to orbit and observation modelling Heike Peter1, Jaime Fernández2, and Pierre Féménias3 1PosiTim UG, Seeheim-Jugenheim, Germany 2GMV AD, Tres Cantos, Spain 3ESA/ESRIN, Frascati, Italy Correspondence: Heike Peter ([email protected]) Received: 13 June 2019 – Revised: 9 January 2020 – Accepted: 29 February 2020 – Published: 27 March 2020 Abstract. The SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) Copernicus 1 Introduction Sentinel-1 satellites require a high orbit accuracy of 5 cm in 3D in comparison to external processing facilities. The offi- cial orbit products delivered by the Copernicus POD (Precise The European Copernicus Programme (Aschbacher and Orbit Determination) Service fulfil this requirement. Nev- Milagro-Pérez, 2012) has been set up to establish European ertheless, analyses have shown discrepancies in the orbit capacity for Earth Observations. The core of the programme results for the two satellites Sentinel-1A and Sentinel-1B. are Earth observation satellites. The Copernicus Sentinel Since the satellites are identical in construction estimated or- missions are dedicated satellites for specific needs within the bit parameters like the scale factor for the radiation pressure programme. are expected to be at the same magnitude, which is not the The Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite Sentinel- case. Estimation of GPS antenna offsets leads to differences 1A (S-1A, Fletcher, 2012; Torres et al., 2012) is the first between the two satellites, which might explain the discrep- satellite of the Copernicus programme. It was launched on ancies in the estimated orbit parameters. Such offset estima- 3 April 2014 from Kourou, French Guiana. The second satel- tions are, however, very sensitive to orbit and observation lite of the mission, Sentinel-1B (S-1B), was launched from modelling. It has to be assured that the results are not bi- the same place about two years later on 25 April 2016. ased by insufficient models. First of all, stabilisation of the Figure1 shows an artist’s impression of the Sentinel-1 antenna offset estimation is achieved by improving the obser- satellite. The C-Band SAR is the main instrument accom- vation modelling by applying single receiver ambiguity reso- panied by telemetry antennas, three star trackers for attitude lution. The Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellites have a very com- determination and two (main and redundant) eight-channel plex shape with the long SAR antenna and the two large solar Global Positioning System (GPS) units for precise orbit de- arrays. Antenna offset estimation based on different satellite termination (POD). The orbit accuracy requirement for Non- models may give results which differ by up to 1.5 cm. The Time Critical (NTC) POD products is given as a maximum dispersion of the estimates is quite large depending also on of 5 cm in 3D in the comparison to external processing facil- eclipse and non-eclipse periods. Consideration of simple as- ities (GMES Sentinel-1 Team, 2006). The Copernicus POD sumptions on satellite self-shadowing effects improves the Service (CPOD Service, Fernández et al., 2014, 2015) is satellite model and also the results of the antenna offset esti- in charge of providing the orbital and auxiliary products mation. Finally, more consistent results for the two Sentinel- needed by the Processing Data Ground Segment (PDGS) of 1 satellites are achieved by applying the antenna offset esti- the satellites. The orbit determination processing is done with mates. NAPEOS (NAvigation Package for Earth Orbiting Satellites, Springer et al., 2011) used for POD of other Earth observa- tion satellites as well, e.g., Jason-2 (Flohrer et al., 2011). GPS is the only POD observation technique available for Sentinel-1. Assessment of the absolute orbit accuracy is, Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 88 H. Peter et al.: Sentinel-1: sensitivity of antenna offset estimation Figure 1. Artist’s impression of the S-1 satellite; © ESA. Figure 2. Sun angle above the orbital plane (β), eclipse period be- tween lines in the middle of the year. therefore, difficult. Radar measurements have already suc- If the same orbit and observation models are applied cessfully been applied for orbit validation of TerraSAR- for precise orbit determination of the two satellites dif- X and TanDEM-X (Hackel et al., 2018). Schmidt et al. ferent results for the estimated orbit parameters might be (2018) indirectly validated the Sentinel-1 NTC orbits with caused by erroneous satellite geometry, namely center-of- radar measurements but did not reach the level of accu- mass (COM) coordinates, GPS ARP coordinates or GPS an- racy necessary for absolute orbit validation. The valida- tenna PCO C PCVs (phase center variations). Antenna off- tion of the orbit accuracy can, therefore, only be done set estimation is a common method to sort out inconsisten- by orbit overlap analysis and by comparison to other or- cies between satellite geometry, observation and orbit mod- bits generated from different institutions. The Coperni- els. Luthcke et al.(2003) and Haines et al.(2004) for in- cus POD Quality Working Group (QWG) is part of the stance did an offset estimation for Jason-1 by estimating the CPOD Service. The member institutions of the QWG de- GPS antenna PCO together with the phase center variations liver independent orbit solutions for all Sentinel satellites (PCV). Radial orbit accuracy and post-fit observation resid- using different software packages and different reduced- uals could significantly be improved. Peter et al.(2017) dis- dynamic orbit determination (Wu et al., 1991) approaches. cussed the interdependency of PCO and PCVs in detail for These alternative orbit solutions are compared in four- S-1A. They claimed the necessity of having PCVs available, month batches to the operational CPOD solutions. The which do not induce offsets, in particular for satellite mis- comparisons are published in the Regular Service Review sions where such auxiliary data is provided to users with dif- (RSR) reports (https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/missions/ ferent software packages and different reduced-dynamic or sentinel-1/ground-segment/pod/documentation, last access: even kinematic orbit determination strategies. 16 March 2020). Based on these RSR comparisons and fol- In the study presented here antenna offset estimation lowing detailed investigations (Peter et al., 2017) an erro- means the estimation of the vector from COM of the satellite neous information in the Sentinel-1 satellite geometry could to the ARP, in most cases the physical mounting point of the be identified. The Up-component of the GPS antenna phase GPS antenna. Although a potential error cannot be assigned center offset (PCO) w.r.t. the antenna reference point (ARP) either to the COM or the ARP or PCO/PCV, the antenna PCO has, therefore, been corrected by 29 mm. The consistency be- and PCVs are handled separately and are not included into tween the CPOD and POD QWG orbit solutions could sig- this term in this case. nificantly be improved although systematic differences were A main topic of this research is the sensitivity of such an- still present in particular during the eclipse period from May tenna offset estimations to orbit and observation modelling to August. for the special case of the Sentinel-1 mission. The two satel- S-1A and S-1B satellites are identical in construction. lites A and B are flying in the same sun-synchronous dawn- Therefore, estimated orbit parameters allow to indirectly val- dusk orbit (inclination 98.18◦, altitude 693 km) but 180◦ idate the orbit solutions by comparing the estimated param- apart. This orbit implies a sun angle over the orbital plane eters such as solar radiation pressure (SRP) coefficient or between 58 and 87◦ with an eclipse period of less than 100 d empirical cycle-per-revolution (CPR) parameters with each between May and August (see Fig.2). other. They are expected not to be exactly the same but they The solar panels are fixed to an angle of 30◦ with respect should have the same magnitude. to the satellite’s z-axis (perpendicular to the SAR antenna Adv. Geosci., 50, 87–100, 2020 www.adv-geosci.net/50/87/2020/ H. Peter et al.: Sentinel-1: sensitivity of antenna offset estimation 89 face direction and positive in direction of radiation) in the The sensitivity analysis of the S-1 antenna offset estima- satellite-fixed reference frame (SRF). The xSRF-axis approx- tion is composed as follows. Section2 shows the differences imately points into the flight direction and the ySRF-direction in the orbit determination results of the two S-1 satellites. is the anti-sun direction. In nominal attitude mode (for details Section3 describes the different orbit and observation mod- see Peter et al., 2017; Fiedler et al., 2005; Miranda, 2005) els used, in particular a detailed description of the macro- the satellite bus is tilted approximately by 30◦ with respect model update including assumptions on the self-shadowing. to the nadir direction as it is implied in Fig.1. The GPS an- The results of the different antenna offset estimations based tennas are also tilted w.r.t. the satellite bus (Peter et al., 2017) on the different orbit and observation models are summarised to have the antenna boresight close to zenith direction all the and analysed in Sect.4. The article is closed with conclusions time. The non-gravitational force modelling is done based on in Sect.5. a satellite macromodel (box-wing model). The satellite and orbit design implies a strong correlation between SRP mod- elling and the cross-track component of the orbit. This fact 2 S-1A and S-1B orbit determination results impacts the selection of the orbit parameter setup and also plays an important role when analysing sensitivity of the S-1 Part of motivation for this study is that the estimated orbit antenna offset estimation to orbit and observation modelling.
Recommended publications
  • CZ-Space Day Intro

    CZ-Space Day Intro

    16.7.2010 ESA TECHNOLOGY → PROGRAMMES AND STRATEGY Czech Space Technology Day - GSTP July 2010 CONTENTS • The European Space Agency -ESA • Space Technology • ESA’s Technology Programmes • Doing business with ESA • ESA’s Long Term Plan 2 1 16.7.2010 → THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY PURPOSE OF ESA “To provide for and promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among European states in space research and technology and their space applications. ” - Article 2 of ESA Convention 4 2 16.7.2010 ESA FACTS AND FIGURES • Over 30 years of experience • 18 Member States • Five establishments, about 2000 staff • 3.7 billion Euro budget (2010) • Over 60 satellites designed, tested and operated in flight • 17 scientific satellites in operation • Five types of launcher developed • Over 190 launches 5 18 MEMBER STATES Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada takes part in some programmes under a Cooperation Agreement. Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, and Estonia are European Cooperating States. Cyprus and Latvia have signed Cooperation Agreements with ESA. 6 3 16.7.2010 ACTIVITIES ESA is one of the few space agencies in the world to combine responsibility in nearly all areas of space activity. • Space science • Navigation • Human spaceflight • Telecommunications • Exploration • Technology • Earth observation • Operations • Launchers 7 ESA PROGRAMMES All Member States participate (on In addition,
  • ACT-RPR-SPS-1110 Sps Europe Paper

    ACT-RPR-SPS-1110 Sps Europe Paper

    62nd International Astronautical Congress, Cape Town, SA. Copyright ©2011 by the European Space Agency (ESA). Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms. IAC-11-C3.1.3 PROSPECTS FOR SPACE SOLAR POWER IN EUROPE Leopold Summerer European Space Agency, Advanced Concepts Team, The Netherlands, [email protected] Lionel Jacques European Space Agency, Advanced Concepts Team, The Netherlands, [email protected] In 2002, a phased, multi-year approach to space solar power has been published. Following this plan, several activities have matured the concept and technology further in the following years. Despite substantial advances in key technologies, space solar power remains still at the weak intersections between the space sector and the energy sector. In the 10 years since the development of the European SPS Programme Plan, both, the space and the energy sectors have undergone substantial changes and many key enabling technologies for space solar power have advanced significantly. The present paper attempts to take account of these changes in view to assess how they influence the prospect for space solar power work for Europe. Fresh Look Study as well as the work on a European I INTRODUCTION sail tower concept by Klimke and Seboldt [16], [17]. Based on these results, which re-confirmed the The concept of generating solar power in space and principal technical viability of space solar power transmitting it to Earth to contribute to terrestrial energy concepts, the focus of the first phase of the European systems has received period attention since P. Glaser SPS programme plan has been to enlarge the evaluation published the first engineering approach to it in 1968 scope of space solar power by including expertise from [1].
  • → Space for Europe European Space Agency

    → Space for Europe European Space Agency

    number 153 | February 2013 bulletin → space for europe European Space Agency The European Space Agency was formed out of, and took over the rights and The ESA headquarters are in Paris. obligations of, the two earlier European space organisations – the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO) and the European Launcher Development The major establishments of ESA are: Organisation (ELDO). The Member States are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands. Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada is a Cooperating State. ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany. In the words of its Convention: the purpose of the Agency shall be to provide for ESRIN, Frascati, Italy. and to promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among European States in space research and technology and their space applications, with a view ESAC, Madrid, Spain. to their being used for scientific purposes and for operational space applications systems: Chairman of the Council: D. Williams (to Dec 2012) → by elaborating and implementing a long-term European space policy, by recommending space objectives to the Member States, and by concerting the Director General: J.-J. Dordain policies of the Member States with respect to other national and international organisations and institutions; → by elaborating and implementing activities and programmes in the space field; → by coordinating the European space programme and national programmes, and by integrating the latter progressively and as completely as possible into the European space programme, in particular as regards the development of applications satellites; → by elaborating and implementing the industrial policy appropriate to its programme and by recommending a coherent industrial policy to the Member States.
  • Exploration of the Moon

    Exploration of the Moon

    Exploration of the Moon The physical exploration of the Moon began when Luna 2, a space probe launched by the Soviet Union, made an impact on the surface of the Moon on September 14, 1959. Prior to that the only available means of exploration had been observation from Earth. The invention of the optical telescope brought about the first leap in the quality of lunar observations. Galileo Galilei is generally credited as the first person to use a telescope for astronomical purposes; having made his own telescope in 1609, the mountains and craters on the lunar surface were among his first observations using it. NASA's Apollo program was the first, and to date only, mission to successfully land humans on the Moon, which it did six times. The first landing took place in 1969, when astronauts placed scientific instruments and returnedlunar samples to Earth. Apollo 12 Lunar Module Intrepid prepares to descend towards the surface of the Moon. NASA photo. Contents Early history Space race Recent exploration Plans Past and future lunar missions See also References External links Early history The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former. His non-religious view of the heavens was one cause for his imprisonment and eventual exile.[1] In his little book On the Face in the Moon's Orb, Plutarch suggested that the Moon had deep recesses in which the light of the Sun did not reach and that the spots are nothing but the shadows of rivers or deep chasms.
  • Spacex CRS-4 National Aeronautics and Fourth Commercial Resupply Services Flight Space Administration

    Spacex CRS-4 National Aeronautics and Fourth Commercial Resupply Services Flight Space Administration

    SpaceX CRS-4 National Aeronautics and Fourth Commercial Resupply Services Flight Space Administration to the International Space Station September 2014 OVERVIEW The Dragon spacecraft will be filled with more than 5,000 pounds of supplies and payloads, including critical materials to support 255 science and research investigations that will occur during Expeditions 41 and 42. Dragon will carry three powered cargo payloads in its pressurized section and two in its unpressurized trunk. Science payloads will enable model organism research using rodents, fruit flies and plants. A special science payload is the ISS-Rapid Scatterometer to monitor ocean surface wind speed and direction. Several new technology demonstrations aboard will enable bone density studies, test how a small satellite moves and positions itself in space using new thruster technology, and use the first 3-D printer in space for additive manufacturing. The mission also delivers IMAX cameras for filming during four increments and replacement batteries for the spacesuits. After four weeks at the space station, the spacecraft will return with about 3,800 pounds of cargo, including crew supplies, hardware and computer resources, science experiments, space station hardware, and four powered payloads. DRAGON CARGO LAUNCH ITEMS RETURN ITEMS TOTAL CARGO: 4885 lbs / 2216 kg 3276 lbs / 1486 kg · Crew Supplies 1380 lbs / 626 kg 132 lbs / 60 kg Crew care packages Crew provisions Food · Vehicle Hardware 403 lbs / 183 kg 937 lbs / 425 kg Crew Health Care System hardware Environment Control & Life Support equipment Electrical Power System hardware Extravehicular Robotics equipment Flight Crew Equipment Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency equipment · Science Investigations 1644 lbs / 746 kg 2075 lbs / 941 kg U.S.
  • NUCLEAR SAFETY LAUNCH APPROVAL: MULTI-MISSION LESSONS LEARNED Yale Chang the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

    NUCLEAR SAFETY LAUNCH APPROVAL: MULTI-MISSION LESSONS LEARNED Yale Chang the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

    ANS NETS 2018 – Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space Las Vegas, NV, February 26 – March 1, 2018, on CD-ROM, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park, IL (2018) NUCLEAR SAFETY LAUNCH APPROVAL: MULTI-MISSION LESSONS LEARNED Yale Chang The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Rd, Laurel, MD 20723 240-228-5724; [email protected] Launching a NASA radioisotope power system (RPS) trajectory to Saturn used a Venus-Venus-Earth-Jupiter mission requires compliance with two Federal mandates: Gravity Assist (VVEJGA) maneuver, where the Earth the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Gravity Assist (EGA) flyby was the primary nuclear safety and launch approval (LA), as directed by Presidential focus of NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Directive/National Security Council Memorandum 25. Cassini Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel Nuclear safety launch approval lessons learned from (INSRP), and the public alike. A solid propellant fire test multiple NASA RPS missions, one Russian RPS mission, campaign addressed the MPF finding and led in part to two non-RPS launch accidents, and several solid the retrofit solid propellant breakup systems (BUSs) propellant fire test campaigns since 1996 are shown to designed and carried by MER-A and MER-B spacecraft have contributed to an ever-growing body of knowledge. and the deployment of plutonium detectors in the launch The launch accidents can be viewed as “unplanned area for PNH. The PNH mission decreased the calendar experiments” that provided real-world data. Lessons length of the NEPA/LA processes to less than 4 years by learned from the nuclear safety launch approval effort of incorporating lessons learned from previous missions and each mission or launch accident, and how they were tests in its spacecraft and mission designs and their applied to improve the NEPA/LA processes and nuclear NEPA/LA processes.
  • Sentinel-1A Launch

    Sentinel-1A Launch

    SENTINEL-1A LAUNCH Arianespace’s seventh Soyuz launch from the Guiana Space Center will orbit Sentinel-1A, the first satellite in Europe’s Earth observation program, Copernicus. The European Space Agency (ESA) chose Thales Alenia Space to design, develop and build the satellite, as well as perform related tests. Copernicus is the new name for the European program previously known as GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security), and is the European Commission’s second major space program, following Galileo. Copernicus is designed to give Europe continuous, independent and reliable access to Earth observation data. With the Soyuz, Ariane 5 and Vega launchers at the Guiana Space Center (CSG), Arianespace is the only launch services provider in the world capable of launching all types of payloads into all orbits, from the smallest to the largest geostationary satellites, from satellite clusters for constellations to cargo missions for the International Space Station (ISS). Arianespace sets the launch services standard for all operators, whether commercial or governmental, and guarantees access to space for scientific missions. Sentinel-1A is the 50th satellite with an Earth observation payload to be launched by Arianespace. Arianespace has seven more Earth observation missions in its order book, including four commercial missions (signed in 2013 and 2014). The Copernicus program is designed to give Europe complete independence in the acquisition and management of environmental data concerning our planet. ESA’s Sentinel programs comprise five satellite families: Sentinel-1, to provide continuity for radar data from ERS and Envisat. Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-3, dedicated to the observation of the Earth and its oceans.
  • Cluster Keeping Algorithms for the Satellite Swarm Sensor Network Project

    Cluster Keeping Algorithms for the Satellite Swarm Sensor Network Project

    5th Federated and Fractionated Satellite Systems Workshop November 2-3, 2017, ISAE SUPAERO – Toulouse, France Cluster Keeping Algorithms for the Satellite Swarm Sensor Network Project Eviatar Edlerman and Pini Gurfil Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract This paper develops cluster control algorithms for the Satellite Swarm Sensor Network (S3Net) project, whose main aim is to enable fractionation of space-based remote sensing, imaging, and observation satellites. A methodological development of orbit control algorithms is provided, supporting the various use cases of the mission. Emphasis is given on outlining the algorithms structure, information flow, and software implementation. The methodology presented herein enables operation of multiple satellites in coordination, to enable fractionation of space sensors and augmentation of data provided therefrom. 1. INTRODUCTION In the field of earth observation from space, modern approaches show a trend of moving away from the classical single satellite missions, where one satellite includes a complete set of sensors and instruments, towards fractionated and distributed sensor missions, where multiple satellites, possibly carrying different types of sensors, act in a formation or swarm. Such missions promise an increase of imaging quality, an increase of service quality and, in many cases, a decrease of deployment costs for satellites that can become smaller and less complex due to mission requirements. Need for incremental deployment can be caused by funding limitations or issues. Although a combination of funds from different interest groups is possible, it can be difficult to achieve. A higher degree of independence for service providers can be enabled through lower cost satellites that allow integration into satellite swarms.
  • → Space for Europe European Space Agency

    → Space for Europe European Space Agency

    number 149 | February 2012 bulletin → space for europe European Space Agency The European Space Agency was formed out of, and took over the rights and The ESA headquarters are in Paris. obligations of, the two earlier European space organisations – the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO) and the European Launcher Development The major establishments of ESA are: Organisation (ELDO). The Member States are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands. Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada is a Cooperating State. ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany. In the words of its Convention: the purpose of the Agency shall be to provide for ESRIN, Frascati, Italy. and to promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among European States in space research and technology and their space applications, with a view ESAC, Madrid, Spain. to their being used for scientific purposes and for operational space applications systems: Chairman of the Council: D. Williams → by elaborating and implementing a long-term European space policy, by Director General: J.-J. Dordain recommending space objectives to the Member States, and by concerting the policies of the Member States with respect to other national and international organisations and institutions; → by elaborating and implementing activities and programmes in the space field; → by coordinating the European space programme and national programmes, and by integrating the latter progressively and as completely as possible into the European space programme, in particular as regards the development of applications satellites; → by elaborating and implementing the industrial policy appropriate to its programme and by recommending a coherent industrial policy to the Member States.
  • Securing Japan an Assessment of Japan´S Strategy for Space

    Securing Japan an Assessment of Japan´S Strategy for Space

    Full Report Securing Japan An assessment of Japan´s strategy for space Report: Title: “ESPI Report 74 - Securing Japan - Full Report” Published: July 2020 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print) • 2076-6688 (online) Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute (ESPI) Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria Phone: +43 1 718 11 18 -0 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.espi.or.at Rights reserved - No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “ESPI Report 74 - Securing Japan - Full Report, July 2020. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: copylot.at Cover page picture credit: European Space Agency (ESA) TABLE OF CONTENT 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and rationales ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Methodology
  • Assessment and Combination of SMAP and Sentinel-1A/B-Derived Soil Moisture Estimates with Land Surface Model Outputs in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, USA

    Assessment and Combination of SMAP and Sentinel-1A/B-Derived Soil Moisture Estimates with Land Surface Model Outputs in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, USA

    This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING 1 Assessment and Combination of SMAP and Sentinel-1A/B-Derived Soil Moisture Estimates With Land Surface Model Outputs in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, USA Hyunglok Kim , Sangchul Lee, Michael H. Cosh , Senior Member, IEEE, Venkataraman Lakshmi , Yonghwan Kwon, and Gregory W. McCarty Abstract— Prediction of large-scale water-related natural further evaluation of the three SM products, and the maximize-R disasters such as droughts, floods, wildfires, landslides, and method was applied to combine SMAP and NoahMP36 SM data. dust outbreaks can benefit from the high spatial resolution CDF-matched 9-, 3-, and 1-km SMAP SM data showed reliable soil moisture (SM) data of satellite and modeled products performance: R and ubRMSD values of the CDF-matched SMAP because antecedent SM conditions in the topsoil layer govern products were 0.658, 0.626, and 0.570 and 0.049, 0.053, and the partitioning of precipitation into infiltration and runoff. 0.055 m3/m3, respectively. When SMAP and NoahMP36 were SM data retrieved from Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) combined, the R-values for the 9-, 3-, and 1-km SMAP SM data have proved to be an effective method of monitoring SM content were greatly improved: R-values were 0.825, 0.804, and 0.795, at different spatial resolutions: 1) radiometer-based product and ubRMSDs were 0.034, 0.036, and 0.037 m3/m3, respectively.
  • IFC-AMC Motion to Dismiss

    IFC-AMC Motion to Dismiss

    Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 34-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1030 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JUANA DOE I et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § § C.A. No. 17-1494-VAC-SRF IFC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, § LLC, § § Defendant. § [PROPOSED] ORDER WHEREAS, Defendant IFC Asset Management Company, LLC, having moved to dismiss the claims in Plaintiff Juana Doe I et al.’s Complaint (D.I. 1); and, WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and arguments in support of and in opposition to said Motion; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _______ day of ____________, 2018, that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. _______________________________ United States District Judge RLF1 18887565v.1 Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 34-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1030 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JUANA DOE I et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § § C.A. No. 17-1494-VAC-SRF IFC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, § LLC, § § Defendant. § [PROPOSED] ORDER WHEREAS, Defendant IFC Asset Management Company, LLC, having moved to dismiss the claims in Plaintiff Juana Doe I et al.’s Complaint (D.I. 1); and, WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and arguments in support of and in opposition to said Motion; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _______ day of ____________, 2018, that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. _______________________________ United States District Judge RLF1 18887565v.1 Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 35 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 51 PageID #: 1031 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JUANA DOE I et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § vs.