DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Satellite Missions (By Year and Sponsoring Agency)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Satellite Missions (By Year and Sponsoring Agency) List of Satellite Missions (by year and sponsoring agency) Launch Year EO Satellite Mission (and sponsoring agency) Launch Year EO Satellite Mission (and sponsoring agency) 1967 Diademe 1&2 (CNES) 2004 FORMOSAT-2 (NSPO) DEMETER (CNES) 1975 STARLETTE (CNES) Aura (NASA / NSO / FMI / BNSC) FY-2C (NRSCC / CMA) 1976 LAGEOS-1 (ASI) PARASOL (CNES) 1984 Landsat-5 (USGS / NASA) 2005 MTSAT-1R (JMA / JCAB) CARTOSAT-1 (ISRO) 1992 LAGEOS-2 (ASI) NOAA-18 (NOAA) Monitor-E (ROSKOSMOS) 1993 SCD-1 (INPE) TopSat (BNSC) STELLA (CNES) BJ-1 (NRSCC) Meteosat-6 (EUMETSAT / ESA) Meteosat-9 (EUMETSAT / ESA) 1995 ERS-2 (ESA) 2006 ALOS (JAXA) RADARSAT-1 (CSA) MTSAT-2 (JMA / JCAB) COSMIC-1/FORMOSAT-3 FM1 (NSPO / NOAA / UCAR) 1997 DMSP F-14 (NOAA) COSMIC-2/FORMOSAT-3 FM2 (NSPO / NOAA / UCAR) Meteosat-7 (EUMETSAT / ESA) COSMIC-3/FORMOSAT-3 FM3 (NSPO / NOAA / UCAR) IRS-1D (ISRO) COSMIC-4/FORMOSAT-3 FM4 (NSPO / NOAA / UCAR) TRMM (NASA / JAXA) COSMIC-5/FORMOSAT-3 FM5 (NSPO / NOAA / UCAR) 1998 GFO (GEOSAT Follow On) (DoD (USA) / COSMIC-6/FORMOSAT-3 FM6 (NSPO / NOAA / UCAR) US Naval Research Lab / CNES) CloudSat (NASA / CSA) SPOT-4 (CNES) CALIPSO (NASA / CNES) NOAA-15 (NOAA) GOES-13 (NOAA) SCD-2 (INPE) Resurs DK 1 (ROSKOSMOS / ROSHYDROMET) KOMPSAT-2 (KARI / ASTRIUM / E-LOP) 1999 INSAT-2E (ISRO) Metop-A (EUMETSAT / ESA) Landsat-7 (NASA / USGS) DMSP F-17 (NOAA) OCEANSAT-1 (ISRO) FY-2D (NRSCC / CMA) QuikSCAT (NASA) Ørsted (Oersted) (DNSC / CNES) 2007 CARTOSAT-2 (ISRO) DMSP F-15 (NOAA) HY-1B (NSOAS / CAST) Terra (NASA / JAXA / CSA) COSMO-SkyMed 1 (ASI / MiD (Italy)) ACRIMSAT (NASA) TerraSAR-X (DLR) CBERS-2B (CRESDA / INPE) 2000 GOES-11 (NOAA) COSMO-SkyMed 2 (ASI / MiD (Italy)) CHAMP (DLR) RADARSAT-2 (CSA) NOAA-16 (NOAA) NMP EO-1 (NASA) 2008 IMS-1 (ISRO) SAC-C (CONAE) FY-3A (NRSCC / CMA) OSTM (NASA / NOAA / CNES / EUMETSAT) 2001 Odin (SNSB / TEKES / CNES / CSA) RapidEye (DLR) GOES-12 (NOAA) HJ-1C (CAST) PROBA (ESA) THEOS (GISTDA) TES (ISRO) COSMO-SkyMed 3 (ASI / MiD (Italy)) Jason (NASA / CNES) FY-2E (NRSCC / CMA) 2002 Envisat (ESA) 2009 GOSAT (JAXA / MOE (Japan) / NIES (Japan)) GRACE (NASA / DLR) NOAA-19 (NOAA) Aqua (NASA / JAXA / BNISS / INPE) GOCE (ESA) SPOT-5 (CNES) FY-1D (NRSCC / CMA) RISAT-2 (ISRO) NOAA-17 (NOAA) GOES-14 (NOAA) Meteosat-8 (EUMETSAT / ESA) Meteor-M N1 (ROSHYDROMET / ROSKOSMOS) KALPANA-1 (ISRO) SumbandilaSat (SANSA / Uni of Stellenbosh) OCEANSAT-2 (ISRO) 2003 CORIOLIS (DoD (USA) / NASA) AISSat-1 (NSC) ICESat (NASA) TanDEM-X (DLR) SORCE (NASA) INSAT-3A (ISRO) SMOS (ESA / CDTI / CNES) SCISAT-1 (CSA) COMS (KARI / ASTRIUM) UK-DMC (BNSC) PICARD (CNES) NigeriaSat-1 (NASRDA) RESOURCESAT-2 (ISRO) RESOURCESAT-1 (ISRO) GOES-P (NOAA) DMSP F-16 (NOAA) Elektro-L N1 (ROSHYDROMET / ROSKOSMOS) 164 8 Catalogue of Satellite Missions Launch Year EO Satellite Mission (and sponsoring agency) Launch Year EO Satellite Mission (and sponsoring agency) 2010 Pleiades 1 (CNES) 2014 SAC-F (CONAE) TES-HYS (ISRO) SAOCOM-2A (CONAE) HY-2A (NSOAS / CAST) Meteosat-11 (EUMETSAT / ESA) RISAT-1 (ISRO) GCOM-C1 (JAXA) CSG-1 (ASI / MiD (Italy)) Glory (NASA) Sentinel-5 precursor (ESA / NSO) CryoSat-2 (ESA) RISAT-L (ISRO) Sich-2 (NSAU) RADARSAT CONSTELLATION-3 (CSA) MEGHA-TROPIQUES (CNES / ISRO) GPM Constellation (NASA / JAXA) RASAT (TUBITAK) GPM-Br (INPE) SARE-1 (CONAE) FY-3D (NRSCC / CMA) SAC-D/Aquarius (CONAE) Elektro-L N3 (ROSHYDROMET / ROSKOSMOS) KOMPSAT-5 (KARI / TAS-i) SMAP (NASA) INSAT-3D (ISRO) Meteor-MP (ROSHYDROMET / ROSKOSMOS) HY-1C (NSOAS / CAST) 2015 SAOCOM-2B (CONAE) NPP (NASA / NOAA / DoD (USA)) ICESat-II (NASA) SARAL (CNES / ISRO) PCW-1 (CSA) COSMO-SkyMed 4 (ASI / MiD (Italy)) PCW-2 (CSA) Swarm (ESA / CNES / CSA) RADARSAT CONSTELLATION-2 (CSA) Sentinel-2 B (ESA / EC) CBERS-3 (CRESDA / INPE) GOES-R (NOAA) LARES (ASI) CSG-2 (ASI / MiD (Italy)) CHINOOK (CSA) Sentinel-3 B (ESA / EC) HY-1D (NSOAS / CAST) FY-4 O/B (NRSCC / CMA) FY-3B (NRSCC / CMA) FY-4 O/C (NRSCC / CMA) Meteor-M N2 (ROSHYDROMET / ROSKOSMOS) FY-4 M/A (NRSCC / CMA) Kanopus-V N1 (ROSKOSMOS / ROSHYDROMET) 2016 NPOESS-2 (NOAA) Resurs P N1 (ROSKOSMOS / ROSHYDROMET) GCOM-W2 (JAXA) Metop-C (EUMETSAT / ESA) 2011 DMSP F-19 (NOAA) GOES-S (NOAA) CARTOSAT-3 (ISRO) MTG-I1 (imaging) (EUMETSAT) ISTAG (ISRO) FY-3E (NRSCC / CMA) OCEANSAT-3 (ISRO) Jason-CS (ESA / EUMETSAT / EC) KOMPSAT-3 (KARI / ASTRIUM) Pleiades 2 (CNES) 2017 DESDynI (NASA) CLARREO (NASA / NOAA) RESOURCESAT-3 (ISRO) HY-3B (NSOAS / CAST) PRISMA-I (ASI) DMSP F-20 (NOAA) 2018 NPOESS-3 (NOAA) ADM-Aeolus (ESA) GCOM-C2 (JAXA) Sentinel-1 A (ESA / EC) Sentinel-1 C (ESA / EC) Meteosat Third Generation-S1 (sounding) VENUS (CNES / ISA) (EUMETSAT / EC / ESA) AMAZÔNIA-1 (INPE) Sentinel-4 A (ESA / EC) Elektro-L N2 (ROSHYDROMET / ROSKOSMOS) FY-3F (NRSCC / CMA) FY-2F (NRSCC) FY-4 M/B (NRSCC / CMA) Kanopus-V N2 (ROSKOSMOS / ROSHYDROMET) 2019 Sentinel-2 C (ESA / EC) PAZ (CDTI) Sentinel-3 C (ESA / EC) 2012 SAC-E/SABIA/mar (CONAE / INPE) Post-EPS (EUMETSAT / EC / ESA) EnMAP (DLR) Sentinel-5 (ESA) FY-4 O/D (NRSCC / CMA) ALOS-2 (JAXA) FY-4 O/E (NRSCC / CMA) HY-3A (NSOAS / CAST) Meteosat-10 (EUMETSAT / ESA) 2020 HyspIRI (NASA) GCOM-W1 (JAXA) ASCENDS (NASA) Metop-B (EUMETSAT / ESA) SWOT (NASA / CNES) SABRINA (ASI) GEO-CAPE (NASA) ACE (NASA) SAOCOM 1A (CONAE / ASI) NPOESS-4 (NOAA) Sentinel-1 B (ESA / EC) GCOM-W3 (JAXA) Sentinel-2 A (ESA / EC) FY-3G (NRSCC / CMA) Sentinel-3 A (ESA / EC) SAOCOM 1B (CONAE / ASI) 2021 MTG-I2 (imaging) (EUMETSAT) LDCM (NASA / USGS) 2022 HY-3C (NSOAS / CAST) FY-3C (NRSCC / CMA) GCOM-C3 (JAXA) FY-4 O/A (NRSCC / CMA) FY-4 M/C (NRSCC / CMA) Ingenio (CDTI / ESA) 2025 MTG-I3 (imaging) (EUMETSAT) 2013 TerraSAR-X2 (DLR) 2026 Meteosat Third Generation-S2 (sounding) ALOS-3 (JAXA) (EUMETSAT / EC / ESA) NPOESS-1 (NOAA) Sentinel-4 B (ESA / EC) EarthCARE (ESA / JAXA) Jason-3 (NOAA / CNES / EUMETSAT) 2029 MTG-I4 (imaging) (EUMETSAT) GPM Core (NASA / JAXA) 2030 LIST (NASA) CBERS-4 (CRESDA / INPE) PATH (NASA) MAPSAR (INPE / DLR) GRACE-II (NASA) RADARSAT CONSTELLATION-1 (CSA) SCLP (NASA) Meteor-M N3 (ROSHYDROMET / ROSKOSMOS) GACM (NASA) Resurs P N2 (ROSKOSMOS / ROSHYDROMET) 3D Winds (NASA) 165.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EOOS Posters Abstracts
    Posters Submissions – EOOS Conference 21 23 November 2018 1. Sylvie Pouliquen Ifremer [email protected] Authors: "Gille Reverdin CNRS/INSU email: [email protected] , Pierre-Yves Le Traon Ifremer & Mercator-Ocean email: [email protected]) and the Coriolis 2014-2020 steering committee." Theme: From standalone to integrated ocean and coastal observing platforms Title: Coriolis: an integrated in-situ ocean observation infrastructure for operational oceanography and ocean/climate research "The Coriolis (www.coriolis.eu.org) structure gathers efforts of seven French institutes (CNES, CNRS, IFREMER, IPEV, IRD, Météo-France, SHOM, CEREMA) to organize the in-situ component of the French operational oceanography infrastructure. The objective is to organize the data acquisition and real- time/delayed mode data processing of in-situ measurements required for operational oceanography and ocean/climate research. Coriolis is focused on a limited number of physical and biogeochemical parameters that are acquired systematically and in real time or slightly delayed mode. Coriolis follows a fully open data policy. The framework of collaboration for Coriolis was renewed in 2014 and now covers the time period of 2014 up to 2020. By signing this new agreement, the eight directors of French institutes have clearly stated their willingness to sustain and consolidate further the Coriolis in-situ infrastructure. The new framework agreement strengthens the links between research and operational oceanography. The scope is also extended to integrate the main French contributions to the global and regional in-situ observing systems: Argo, gliders, research vessels, ship of opportunities, drifting buoys, marine mammals, tidal networks and high frequency coastal observatories.
    [Show full text]
  • OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook
    OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook References: CNES : SALP-MU-M-OP-15815-CN EUMETSAT : EUM/OPS-JAS/MAN/08/0041 JPL: OSTM-29-1237 NOAA : Issue: 1 rev 0 Date: 17 June 2008 OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook Iss :1.0 - date : 17 June 2008 i.1 Chronology Issues: Issue: Date: Reason for change: 1rev0 June 17, 2008 Initial Issue People involved in this issue: Written by (*) : Date J.P. DUMONT CLS V. ROSMORDUC CLS N. PICOT CNES S. DESAI NASA/JPL H. BONEKAMP EUMETSAT J. FIGA EUMETSAT J. LILLIBRIDGE NOAA R. SHARROO ALTIMETRICS Index Sheet : Context: Keywords: Hyperlink: OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook Iss :1.0 - date : 17 June 2008 i.2 List of tables and figures List of tables: Table 1 : Differences between Auxiliary Data for O/I/GDR Products 1 Table 2 : Summary of error budget at the end of the verification phase 9 Table 3 : Main features of the OSTM/Jason-2 satellite 11 Table 4 : Mean classical orbit elements 16 Table 5 : Orbit auxiliary data 16 Table 6 : Equator Crossing Longitudes (in order of Pass Number) 18 Table 7 : Equator Crossing Longitudes (in order of Longitude) 19 Table 8 : Models and standards 21 Table 9 : CLS01 MSS model characteristics 22 Table 10 : CLS Rio 05 MDT model characteristics 23 Table 11 : Recommended editing criteria 26 Table 12 : Recommended filtering criteria 26 Table 13 : Recommended additional empirical tests 26 Table 14 : Main characteristics of (O)(I)GDR products 40 Table 15 - Dimensions used in the OSTM/Jason-2 data sets 42 Table 16 - netCDF variable type 42 Table 17 - Variable’s attributes 43 List of figures: Figure 1
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Flight SAOCOM-1A SAR Performance Assessment by Outdoor Campaign
    remote sensing Technical Note Pre-Flight SAOCOM-1A SAR Performance Assessment by Outdoor Campaign Davide Giudici 1, Andrea Monti Guarnieri 2 ID and Juan Pablo Cuesta Gonzalez 3,* 1 ARESYS srl, Via Flumendosa 16, 20132 Milan, Italy; [email protected] 2 Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy; [email protected] 3 CONAE, Avda. Paseo Colon 751, 1063 Buenos Aires, Argentina * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-02-8724-4809 Academic Editors: Timo Balz, Uwe Soergel, Mattia Crespi, Batuhan Osmanoglu, Daniele Riccio and Prasad S. Thenkabail Received: 23 May 2017; Accepted: 12 July 2017; Published: 14 July 2017 Abstract: In the present paper, we describe the design, execution, and the results of an outdoor experimental campaign involving the Engineering Model of the first of the two Argentinean L-band Synthetic Aperture Radars (SARs) of the Satélite Argentino de Observación con Microondas (SAOCOM) mission, SAOCOM-1A. The experiment’s main objectives were to test the end-to-end SAR operation and to assess the instrument amplitude and phase stability as well as the far-field antenna pattern, through the illumination of a moving target placed several kilometers away from the SAR. The campaign was carried out in Bariloche, Argentina, during June 2016. The experiment was successful, demonstrating an end-to-end readiness of the SAOCOM-SAR functionality in realistic conditions. The results showed an excellent SAR signal quality in terms of amplitude and phase stability. Keywords: SAR; pre-flight testing; SAR performance 1. Introduction The forthcoming Argentinean mission Satélite Argentino de Observación con Microondas (SAOCOM) [1] is constituted by two identical Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) satellites, SAOCOM-1A and -1B, carrying as the main payload an L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR).
    [Show full text]
  • Dod Space Technology Guide
    Foreword Space-based capabilities are integral to the U.S.’s national security operational doctrines and processes. Such capa- bilities as reliable, real-time high-bandwidth communica- tions can provide an invaluable combat advantage in terms of clarity of command intentions and flexibility in the face of operational changes. Satellite-generated knowledge of enemy dispositions and movements can be and has been exploited by U.S. and allied commanders to achieve deci- sive victories. Precision navigation and weather data from space permit optimal force disposition, maneuver, decision- making, and responsiveness. At the same time, space systems focused on strategic nuclear assets have enabled the National Command Authorities to act with confidence during times of crisis, secure in their understanding of the strategic force postures. Access to space and the advantages deriving from operat- ing in space are being affected by technological progress If our Armed Forces are to be throughout the world. As in other areas of technology, the faster, more lethal, and more precise in 2020 advantages our military derives from its uses of space are than they are today, we must continue to dynamic. Current space capabilities derive from prior invest in and develop new military capabilities. decades of technology development and application. Joint Vision 2020 Future capabilities will depend on space technology programs of today. Thus, continuing investment in space technologies is needed to maintain the “full spectrum dominance” called for by Joint Vision 2010 and 2020, and to protect freedom of access to space by all law-abiding nations. Trends in the availability and directions of technology clearly suggest that the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanisms for Space Applications
    Mechanisms for space applications M. Meftah a,* , A. Irbah a, R. Le Letty b, M. Barr´ ec, S. Pasquarella d, M. Bokaie e, A. Bataille b, and G. Poiet a a CNRS/INSU, LATMOS-IPSL, Universit´ e Versailles St-Quentin, Guyancourt, France b Cedrat Technologies SA, 15 Ch. de Malacher, 38246 Meylan, France c Thales Avionics Electrical Motors, 78700 Conflans Sainte-Honorine, France d Vincent Associates, 803 Linden Ave., Rochester, NY 14625,United States e TiNi Aerospace, 2505 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, United States ABSTRACT All space instruments contain mechanisms or moving mechanical assemblies that must move (sliding, rolling, rotating, or spinning) and their successful operati on is usually mission-critical. Generally, mechanisms are not redundant and therefore represent potential single point failure modes. Several space missions have suered anomalies or failures due to problems in applying space mechanisms technology. Mechanisms require a specific qualification through a dedicated test campaign. This paper covers the design, development, testing, production, and in-flight experience of the PICARD/SODISM mechanisms. PICARD is a space mission dedicated to the study of the Sun. The PICARD Satellite was successfully launched, on June 15, 2010 on a DNEPR launcher from Dombarovskiy Cosmodrome, near Yasny (Russia). SODISM (SOlar Diameter Imager and Surface Mapper) is a 11 cm Ritchey-Chretien imaging telescope, taking solar images at five wavelengths. SODISM uses several mechanisms (a system to unlock the door at the entrance of the instrument, a system to open/closed the door using a stepper motor, two filters wheels usingastepper motor, and a mechanical shutter). For the fine pointing, SODISM uses three piezoelectric devices acting on th e primary mirror of the telescope.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Gale to Hurricane Force Winds Using the Satellite Altimeter
    VOLUME 28 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY APRIL 2011 Estimating Gale to Hurricane Force Winds Using the Satellite Altimeter YVES QUILFEN Space Oceanography Laboratory, IFREMER, Plouzane´, France DOUG VANDEMARK Ocean Process Analysis Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire BERTRAND CHAPRON Space Oceanography Laboratory, IFREMER, Plouzane´, France HUI FENG Ocean Process Analysis Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire JOE SIENKIEWICZ Ocean Prediction Center, NCEP/NOAA, Camp Springs, Maryland (Manuscript received 21 September 2010, in final form 29 November 2010) ABSTRACT A new model is provided for estimating maritime near-surface wind speeds (U10) from satellite altimeter backscatter data during high wind conditions. The model is built using coincident satellite scatterometer and altimeter observations obtained from QuikSCAT and Jason satellite orbit crossovers in 2008 and 2009. The new wind measurements are linear with inverse radar backscatter levels, a result close to the earlier altimeter high wind speed model of Young (1993). By design, the model only applies for wind speeds above 18 m s21. Above this level, standard altimeter wind speed algorithms are not reliable and typically underestimate the true value. Simple rules for applying the new model to the present-day suite of satellite altimeters (Jason-1, Jason-2, and Envisat RA-2) are provided, with a key objective being provision of enhanced data for near-real- time forecast and warning applications surrounding gale to hurricane force wind events. Model limitations and strengths are discussed and highlight the valuable 5-km spatial resolution sea state and wind speed al- timeter information that can complement other data sources included in forecast guidance and air–sea in- teraction studies.
    [Show full text]
  • ODQN 10-1.Indd
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Orbital Debris Quarterly News Volume 10, Issue 1 January 2006 Collision Avoidance Maneuver Performed by NASA’s Terra Spacecraft Inside... The Terra spacecraft, often referred to as the ignator 1983-063C, U.S. Satellite Number 14222) fl agship of NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS), would come within 500 m of Terra on 23 October, successfully performed a small collision avoidance GSFC and SSN personnel undertook a more de- Large Area Debris maneuver on 21 October 2005 to ensure safe passage tailed assessment of the coming conjunction. Collector (LAD-C) by a piece of orbital debris two days later. This ac- The Scout debris was in an orbit with an alti- Update ........................2 tion demonstrated the effectiveness of a conjunction tude similar to that of Terra (approximately assessment procedure implemented in 2004 680 km by 710 km), but its posigrade Revision of Space by personnel of the NASA Goddard inclination of 82.4° and different orbit Shuttle Wing Leading Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the plane meant that a collision would have Edge Reinforced U.S. Space Surveillance Network occurred at a high velocity of near- (SSN). The trajectories of Terra ly 12 km/s. By 21 October Carbon-Carbon Failure and its companion EOS space- refi ned analysis of the Criteria Based on craft are frequently com- future close approach Hypervelocity Impact pared with the orbits of indicated that the miss and Arc-Jet Testing ...3 thousands of objects distance was only ap- tracked by the SSN proximately 50 m with Object Reentry to determine if an an uncertainty that Survivability Analysis accidental collision yielded a probability Tool (ORSAT) – is possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Multiple Satellite Precipitation Products and Their Use in Hydrological Modelling Over the Luanhe River Basin, China
    water Article Evaluation of Multiple Satellite Precipitation Products and Their Use in Hydrological Modelling over the Luanhe River Basin, China Peizhen Ren, Jianzhu Li *, Ping Feng, Yuangang Guo and Qiushuang Ma State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China; [email protected] (P.R.); [email protected] (P.F.); [email protected] (Y.G.); [email protected] (Q.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-136-2215-1558 Received: 26 March 2018; Accepted: 14 May 2018; Published: 24 May 2018 Abstract: Satellite precipitation products are unique sources of precipitation measurement that overcome spatial and temporal limitations, but their precision differs in specific catchments and climate zones. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the precipitation data derived from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) 3B42RT, TRMM 3B42, and Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN) products over the Luanhe River basin, North China, from 2001 to 2012. Subsequently, we further explore the performances of these products in hydrological models using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model with parameter and prediction uncertainty analyses. The results show that 3B42 and 3B42RT overestimate precipitation, with BIAs values of 20.17% and 62.80%, respectively, while PERSIANN underestimates precipitation with a BIAs of −6.38%. Overall, 3B42 has the smallest RMSE and MAE and the highest CC values on both daily and monthly scales and performs better than PERSIANN, followed by 3B42RT. The results of the hydrological evaluation suggest that precipitation is a critical source of uncertainty in the SWAT model, and different precipitation values result in parameter uncertainty, which propagates to prediction and water resource management uncertainties.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Radius Determined from PICARD/SODISM Observations and Extremely Weak Wavelength Dependence in the Visible and the Near-Infrared
    A&A 616, A64 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832159 Astronomy c ESO 2018 & Astrophysics Solar radius determined from PICARD/SODISM observations and extremely weak wavelength dependence in the visible and the near-infrared M. Meftah1, T. Corbard2, A. Hauchecorne1, F. Morand2, R. Ikhlef2, B. Chauvineau2, C. Renaud2, A. Sarkissian1, and L. Damé1 1 Université Paris Saclay, Sorbonne Université, UVSQ, CNRS, LATMOS, 11 Boulevard d’Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, France e-mail: [email protected] 2 Université de la Côte d’Azur, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur (OCA), CNRS, Boulevard de l’Observatoire, 06304 Nice, France Received 23 October 2017 / Accepted 9 May 2018 ABSTRACT Context. In 2015, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) passed Resolution B3, which defined a set of nominal conversion constants for stellar and planetary astronomy. Resolution B3 defined a new value of the nominal solar radius (RN = 695 700 km) that is different from the canonical value used until now (695 990 km). The nominal solar radius is consistent with helioseismic estimates. Recent results obtained from ground-based instruments, balloon flights, or space-based instruments highlight solar radius values that are significantly different. These results are related to the direct measurements of the photospheric solar radius, which are mainly based on the inflection point position methods. The discrepancy between the seismic radius and the photospheric solar radius can be explained by the difference between the height at disk center and the inflection point of the intensity profile on the solar limb. At 535.7 nm (photosphere), there may be a difference of 330 km between the two definitions of the solar radius.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Bearings in the Development of Mathematics
    This dissertation has been 65—3869 microfilmed exactly as received HUMBERD, Jesse David, 1921- RELIGIOUS BEARINGS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MATHEMATICS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1964 Education, history University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by Jesse David Humberd 1965 RELIGIOUS BEARINGS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OP MATHEMATICS DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jesse David Humberd, B.S., B.A., M*A., B.D, - 5 ;- - i s - # - j t The Ohio State University 1964 Approved by A d v ise r Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks and appreciation to Dr, Harold P, Fawcett, teacher and adviser, for his inspiring personality in the classroom, and for his enthusiastic support in the preparation of this study. The author was first challenged by Dr, Fawcett in 1947, when in his first graduate course, Education 687, he was challenged to read more than twenty basic works in mathematics education. From that day to the present, he has known and valued greatly the ready enthusiasm and wise counsel of this master teacher. It is with deep gratitude that the author recognizes the cooperation and encouragement of his wife, Laura, during the preparation of this study. Much of the inconvenience resulting from moving the family several times, for graduate work; and most of the extra effort at home caused by periods of the w riter’s absence, has been borne by her. And to Lenora and Margaret, (or as they would have it, Lee and Meg), the author expresses thanks for their loyalty, during what must have seemed to be most of their lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbital Debris Program Office Figure 1
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Orbital Debris Quarterly News Volume 13, Issue 1 January 2009 Inside... New Debris Seen from Decommissioned Fengyun-1C Debris: Two Years Later 2 Satellite with Nuclear Power Source The ESA’s ATV-1 Reentry Event 3 A 21-year-old satellite containing a dormant According to Russian reports, the nuclear reactors nuclear reactor was the source of an unexpected on Cosmos 1818 and Cosmos 1867 functioned for Two New Microsatellite debris cloud in early July 2008. Launched by the approximately 5 and 11 months, respectively. For Impact Tests 4 former Soviet Union in February 1987, Cosmos the next two decades, the two inactive spacecraft 1818 (International Designator 1987-011A, circled the Earth without significant incident. Review of Different U.S. Satellite Number 17369) was the first of two Following the fragmentation event on or about Solar Cycle 24 vehicles designed to test a new, more advanced 4 July 2008, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network Predictions 7 nuclear power supply in low Earth orbit. Dozens was able to produce orbital data on 30 small debris of small particles were released during the still- (Figure 2). The majority of these debris were ejected Don Kessler Wins unexplained debris generation event. in a posigrade direction with velocities of less Space Safety Pioneer Cosmos 1818 and its sister spacecraft, than 15 meters per second, suggesting a relatively Award 8 Cosmos 1867 (Figure 1), carried a thermionic low energy event. From radar detections, a larger nuclear power supply, in contrast to the simpler, number of very small debris appear to have also Abstracts from the thermoelectric nuclear device which provided been released, but routine tracking of these debris NASA OD Program energy to the well-known RORSATs (Radar Ocean has proven difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote​ ​Sensing​ ​(Test)
    Scioly Summer Study Session 2017 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Remote Sensing (Test) Topic: Clima​te​ Change Pro​ c​ esses* ___ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ By user whythelongface (merge) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Name(s): _________________________________________ ​ ​ Test format: ​ ​ This test is worth 150 points. There are four sections: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​​ 1. Remote Sensing Technology and techniques (50 points) ___ /50 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2. Data Use and Manipulation (20 points) ___ /20 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3. Image Interpretation (30 points) ___ /30 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 4. Weather and Climate Processes (50 points) ___ /50 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Total: ___ /150 ​ ​ As of the 2016-2017 season, each person is allowed one double-sided 8.5 × 11” notesheet. Each ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ partnership is allowed a protractor, ruler, writing implements, and a scientific calculator. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​​ Graphing calculators are not allowed. The author wishes you best of luck on this test and in the ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2017-2018 Science Olympiad season. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ *The topic for the 2017-2018 season is still unknown at the time this test is being written, so it will focus on the same topic as that ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ of the 2016-2017 season. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Part 1: Remote Sensing Technology ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Multiple Choice (1 point each) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
    [Show full text]