range bias vs intensity 2005 toshimichi otsubo kashima space research center national institute of...
TRANSCRIPT
Range Bias vs Intensity 2005
Toshimichi Otsubo
Kashima Space Research CenterNational Institute of Information and Communications Technology
ILRS Fall 2005 Workshop, 5 Oct 2005
Satelllite signature
Transmitted pulse NOT equal to Return pulse– Multiple CCRs contributing to the return.– Where is the detection timing?
+
satellite
centre
(pulse transmittedfrom ground station)
(retroreflectedpulse)
cube corner reflectors
(imaginary pulse reflected
at centre)– Key error factor for TRF scale, GM, etc.
System-type-dependent centre-of-mass System-type-dependent centre-of-mass correctioncorrection
LAGEOSFrom Otsubo and Appleby, JGR, 2003.
0.25 0.24 (m)
251 “Standard”257.6r - nL
2453-sigma
242w/o clipping
245Ideal S.P. (<0.1 p.e.)
2491 p.e.
257100 p.e.
25610 p.e.
2561 ps
252100 ps
248300 ps
2441ns
2423ns FWHM
SingleSinglePhotonPhoton
C-SPADC-SPAD
PMTPMT(LEHM)(LEHM)
2502-sigma
2472.5-sigma
247249250252 (n=2.0)
245Hx
System-type-dependent centre-of-mass System-type-dependent centre-of-mass correctioncorrectionAJISAI
SingleSinglePhotonPhoton
C-SPADC-SPAD
1.00 0.95 (m)
1010 “Standard”1028r - nL
9763-sigma
962w/o clip
977Ideal S.P. (<0.1 p.e.)
9901 p.e.
1023100 p.e.
102010 p.e.
10221 ps
1017100 ps
1009300 ps
9931 ns
9763 ns FWHM
9852.5-sigma
9972-sigma
PMTPMT(LEHM)(LEHM)
977 (n=2.0)9879931002
985Hx
From Otsubo and Appleby, JGR, 2003.
Intensity-dependent Bias
Are CoM corrections constant in the real world? – Big challenge for “mm accuracy”
Systematic error harmful in the analysis stage– Likely to be elevation-angle-dependent– Directly contaminates station heights (Otsubo, 2004). – Short pulse: fully compensated by C-SPAD / CFD.– Long pulse: target signature (STRL < LAG < AJI)– The stronger, the shorter? Not so simple?
Bias vs Intensity: Analysis Procedure
Use of “Returns per NP bin” as intensity parameter– Strong signal High return rate– Weak signal Low return rate (Extreme: single photon)
Orbit determination– Period: Jan 2004 to Jul 2005 (210 days)– Satellites: LAG1+LAG2, AJISAI, STARLETTE+STELLA– ‘concerto v4’ solved for orbits, station position & range bias– Stations: Top 20 in Quarterly Performance Card (Thanks Mark
!)
– Post-fit residuals sorted by “returns per NP bin”
Riga 1884: PMT
McDonald 7080: PMT
Yarragadee 7090: PMT
Greenbelt 7105: PMT
Monument Peak 7110: PMT
Changchun 7237: APD
Beijing 7249: APD
Hartebeestoek 7501: PMT
Zimmerwald 7810 (423 nm): APD
Zimmerwald 7810 (846 nm): APD
Borowiec 7811: PMT
San Fernando 7824: PMT
Mt Stromlo 7825: APD
Riyadh 7832: SPAD? (No SCI Log)
Grasse 7835: APD
Shanghai 7837: APD
Simosato 7838: PMT
Graz 7839: APD
Herstmonceux 7840: APD
Potsdam 7841: PMT
Matera 7941: PMT? (No SCI Log)
Wettzell 8834: PMT+APD (?)
Discussions: 1 mm accuracy? Still things to do!
“Bias vs Intensity”: overall summary – Up to +/- 5 mm for LAG1+LAG2 and STRL+STEL.– Up to +/- 10-15 mm for AJI.– Single photon systems behave superbly.– The result is most likely to be underestimated.– It has already affected TRFs for a long time.
Necessity to eliminate the intensity dependence– Accurate vertical component is our strength!– Think “accuracy” instead of “single shot rms” or “# of returns.”– Let us see “High-Low Experiments” !!
System-type-dependent centre-of-mass System-type-dependent centre-of-mass correctioncorrectionETALON
SingleSinglePhotonPhoton
C-SPADC-SPAD
0.60 0.55 (m)
576 “Standard”613r - nL
5563-sigma
552w/o clip
558 Ideal S.P. (<0.1 p.e.)
5731 p.e.
613100 p.e.
60810 p.e.
6121 ps
607100 ps
598300 ps
5781 ns
5623 ns FWHM
5802-sigma
5642.5-sigma
PMTPMT(LEHM)(LEHM)
570575582593 (n=2.0)
565Hx
From Otsubo and Appleby, JGR, 2003.