Next-gen space architecture discussions explore whether MW and IR sensors should be collocated on the same platform or separately for improved technology and science outcomes. Disaggregation of these sensors could potentially enhance spatial and temporal coverages. Input from subject matter experts sheds light on the advantages and considerations of collocating or separating these sensors.
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
Context Setting Questions arise as part of the next-gen space architecture discussions, on whether - MW and IR sensors should be collocated on the same platform - Should we have the ShortWave, MidWave and LongWave bands on the same sensor? Or is is possible to exploit them separated from different sensor These are important questions because: - Consequences on the technology (maturity, cost, etc) - Also on the science side: disaggregation might have (or not) impact on the performance - Disaggregation could lead to more spatial (and temporal) coverages (for the same number of sensors)
Disaggregation of MW and IR sensors NOAA (NESDIS) NASA/GMAO JPSS UKMO ECMWF IR and MW collocated and assimilated together No direct advantage Concurrent MW and IR radiances not considered MW and IR are used completely separately for data assimilation, but together for NUCAPS. Both should be considered some actual and potential advantages of having both instruments on the same platform, but they are much smaller than they used to be. I can see they might easily be offset if removing this requirement allowed us to have more observations overall. No requirement that MW and IR must be on the same platform
Other critical Inputs from SMEs Other critical Inputs from SMEs SME Eric Maddy: (1) IR sounder and MW imager do not have to be on the same satellite bus or at same angles to perform cloud-clearing. (2) cloud-clearing using hyperspectral IR with spectrally integrated, spatially co-located imager out-performs traditional cloud-clearing using MW. SME Chris Barnet: Co-located microwave adds information for NUCAPS users and DA could benefit, but not having MW will not make the IR sounding fail
