1 / 12

RFI performance of L2OS processor Comparison between ascending and descending orbits

RFI performance of L2OS processor Comparison between ascending and descending orbits. Aim and methodology. Performance of the L2OS concerning RFI detection : Geographical location of RFI’s affection Extent and Amplitude of this affection Persistance in time Used dataset:

cerise
Download Presentation

RFI performance of L2OS processor Comparison between ascending and descending orbits

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RFI performance of L2OS processorComparison between ascending and descending orbits L2OS PM

  2. Aim and methodology • Performance of the L2OS concerning RFI detection : Geographical location of RFI’s affectionExtent and Amplitude of this affection Persistance in time • Used dataset: • Reprocessed data over July 2010 with L2OS processor V500 • Studied area : whole oceanic zones • Studied period : 01/07/2010 – 27/07/2010 • Ocean Target Transformation (OTT) : ONSun correction : ON • RFI results unfiltered • Distinction between : - gridpointsflaggedonly by ascending or descendingorbits - gridpointsflagged by both L2OS PM

  3. L2OS V500 RFI detection L2OS PM

  4. Results and Analysis 3°) 4°) 2°) 1°) Common to ascending and descending orbits: 1°) The ice limit 2°) Chinese/Japanese coastlines 3°) Northern Atlantic Ocean 4°) Mediterranean sea L2OS PM

  5. 2°) 1°) • Only in ascendingorbits (up) : 1° and 2°) The Northern RFI belt in Pacific and Atlantic Ocean • Only in descendingorbits (down): 1°) The NorthenJapanaseCoastline 2°) The Western American coastline 3°) Someerroneousorbits A lot of gridpointsflaggedonly one time in Open Ocean 1°) 2°) 3°) 3°) L2OS PM

  6. Focuse on gridpointsflagged by both : Concerning the highest % of L1c measurementsflagged as affected by RFI: • samerepartition over asc. and desc. orbits • % are slightyhigher for asc. orbits, speciallyneararabianpeninsula L2OS PM

  7. Focuse on gridpoints flagged by both : Same comparative results concerning the mean % of L1c measurements flagged as affected by RFI. L2OS PM

  8. In Northern Hemisphere, the asc. orbits are more polluted than desc. • The difference is less important in Southern hemisphere • Same conclusion can be dressed by distinguishing several specific parts of the Ocean L2OS PM

  9. L2OS PM

  10. If we compared the mean(%) over asc. and desc. gridpoint by gridpoint: During July 2010, a same GP has been more often seen by desc. orbits than by asc. orbits (right figure) For a same gridpoints, mean (%) over asc. orbits is satistically close to mean (% over desc. orbits (left figure) This conclusion is all the more true than the number of overpassing is important GP seen between 1 and 50 times by asc. orbits over July 2010 L2OS PM

  11. GP seen between 50 and 100 times by asc. orbits over July 2010 GP seen between over 100 times by asc. orbits over July 2010 L2OS PM

  12. For a same GP, the percentage of • Non affectation by an RFI (i.e. % flagged L1c < 50%) • Affectation by RFI (i.e. % flagged L1c > 50%) • no risk of RFI (i.e. first step of RFI detection algo failed) is similar for asc. and desc. orbits, L2OS PM

More Related