1 / 18

SNR EXPT < SNR THEORY TARGET A ¹ TARGET B RESULTS CLR DATA ¹ OTHER SENSORS’ DATA

Coherent Lidar: Factors Of Two Among Friends Michael J. Kavaya NASA/Langley Research Center July 16, 2002 NOAA Working Group on Space-Based Lidar Winds. The Situation. SNR EXPT < SNR THEORY TARGET A ¹ TARGET B RESULTS CLR DATA ¹ OTHER SENSORS’ DATA. 1. SNR EXPT < SNR THEORY.

ivrit
Download Presentation

SNR EXPT < SNR THEORY TARGET A ¹ TARGET B RESULTS CLR DATA ¹ OTHER SENSORS’ DATA

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. Coherent Lidar:Factors Of Two Among FriendsMichael J. KavayaNASA/Langley Research CenterJuly 16, 2002NOAA Working Group on Space-Based Lidar Winds

  2. The Situation • SNREXPT < SNRTHEORY • TARGET A ¹ TARGET B RESULTS • CLR DATA ¹ OTHER SENSORS’ DATA

  3. 1. SNREXPT < SNRTHEORY • Brandewie & Davis, Appl. Opt. 11, 1526 (1972) • [CW, 10.6 mm, 2 x 5.8 cm, -6 dB, HT-D] • Huffaker, NCAR Atmospheric Technology, 71 (Winter 74-75) • [Pulsed, 10.6 mm, 30.5 cm, -20-30 dB, collected particles/theory] • Schwiesow & Cupp, Appl. Opt. 19, 3168 (1980) • [CW, 10.6 mm, 30 cm, -5 dB, HT-D] • Post, Richter, Hardesty, Lawrence, & Hall, Jr., Proc. SPIE 300, 60 (1981) • [Pulsed, 10.6 mm, 28 cm, -7 dB, HT-D] • Renhorn, Steinvall, Letalick, et al, Proc. SPIE 415, 39 (1983) • [CW, 10.6 mm, 11 cm, -3 dB, HT-G] • Foord, Jones, Vaughan, & Willetts, Appl. Opt. 22, 3787 (1983) • [CW, 10.6 mm, 20 cm, -0.8 dB, HT-D] • Shapiro, Appl. Opt. 24, 1245 (1985) • [Corrects Foord et al to –6.4 dB] CW = Continuous Wave, HT = Hard Target, D = Diffuse, G = Glint

  4. Coherent Lidar SNR Equation • SNRSB = E A (LSE)TA2 bc hMIS,S hnB 2 R2 n = c/lA = pD2/4 LIDARATMOSPHERE SB – Search Band f – frequency V – velocity A – atmosphere MIS – misalignment S – spacecraft LSE – Lidar System Efficiency (photon) Frehlich and Kavaya, Appl. Opt. 30, 5325 (1991). Eqs. (92, 117, 119)

  5. Lidar System Efficiency (LSE) • 0.707 Lidar portion of T/R angle misalignment factor hMIS,L • 0.578 T/R intensity transmission factor • 0.931 T/R aberration sub product • 0.319 Detection sub product • ________________________________________ • 0.122 Lidar System Efficiency = LSE • (12/01 input to GSFC ISAL/IMDC mission design teams)

  6. SNREXPT < SNRTHEORY SUSPECTS • Lidar system overestimated • Atmosphere loss underestimated • Lidar target reflectance overestimated

  7. 2. TARGET A ¹ TARGET B RESULTS • Jarzembski, Srivastava, & Chambers, Appl. Opt. 35, 2096 (1996): • LSEEXPT,HT ~ 2 x LSEEXPT,AER (1.7-2) • Hypothesis : Assume LSEEXPT,AER correct Þ LSEEXPT,HT x2 too high Þ rHT x2 too low Þ bCLR x2 too low

  8. 3. CLR DATA ¹ OTHER SENSORS’ DATA • Post, Grund, Wang, & Deshler, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 13535 (1997): • Used Mt. Pinatubo well studied spherical aerosols at 18 km • bEXPT,OPC ~ 2 x bEXPT,CLR (1.7-2.2) • Hypothesis: AssumebEXPT,OPC is correct • ÞbEXPT,CLR is x2 too low • ÞLSEEXPT,HT is x2 too high ÞrHT is x2 too low

  9. TARGET CALIBRATION METHODOLOGY? • Haner & Tratt, 11th Coherent Laser Radar Conf., Malvern, UK, p. 64 (2001) • Discussed Jarzembski et al and Post et al papers • Hypothesized a factor of 2 difference in reflectivity of diffuse dispersed target vs. diffuse rigidly connected target

  10. More Hypotheses

  11. Atmospheric Refractive Turbulence Loss Underestimated • Yura, Optica Acta 26, 627 (1979) • Clifford & Wandzura, Appl. Opt. 20, 514 (1981) • Frehlich & Kavaya, Appl. Opt. 30, 5325 (1991) • Belen’kii, Appl. Opt. 32, 5368 (1993) • Frehlich, Appl. Opt. 39, 4237 (2000) • Yes, would cause SNREXPT < SNRTHEORY; but a continuumof difference values, not X2

  12. Optical Aberrations Underestimated • Rye, Appl. Opt. 21, 839 (1982) • Spiers, 10th Coherent Laser Radar Conf., p. 170 (1999) • Delautre, Breugnot, & Laude, Opt. Comm. 160, 60 (1999) • Yes, would cause SNREXPT < SNRTHEORY; but a continuum of difference values, not X2 • Sub-Optimum Detection • Hunt, Holmes, & Amzajerdian, Appl. Opt. 27, 3135 (1988) • Wilson, Constant, Foord, & Vaughan, Infrared Phys. 31, 109 (1991) • Holmes & Rask, Appl. Opt. 34, 927 (1995) • Amzajerdian, 11th Coherent Laser Radar Conf., p. 176 (2001) • (“Optimization of the lidar receiver will gain up to 3 dB … in SNR”) • Yes, would cause SNREXPT < SNRTHEORY; but a continuum of difference values, not X2

  13. Opposition Effect Causes X2 Hard Target Reflectance Underestimation • Egan & Hilgeman, Appl. Opt. 16, 2861 (1977) [indep. of incident angle] • Mendez & O’Donnell, Opt. Commun. 61, 91 (1987); [hard target effect seen] • McGurn, Surface Science Reports 10, 357 (1990) • Neito-Vesperinas, Opt. & Photonics News, 50 (12/1990) • Corey, Kissner, & Saulnier, Am. J. Phys. 63, 560 (1995) • Pitter, Jakeman, & Harris, Opt. Lett. 22, 393 (1997); [3 dB, 1-3 mrad, het. det.] PR PR 0 180 0 180 PI PI

  14. Opposition Effect Causes X2 Hard Target Reflectance Underestimation • Lab target calibration FOV large; misses OE • Lidar FOV to field target small; within OE • ÞrHT is x2 too low • ÞLSEEXPT,HT is x2 too high • ÞbEXPT,CLR is x2 too low Close target; laboratory calibration FOV Far target; lidar FOV PR PR 180 0 180 180 0 180

  15. Observation/Suspect Compatibility Matrix SNREXPT < TARGET A ¹ CLR DATA ¹ OTHER SNRTHEORYTARGET B RESULTS SENSORS’ DATA X2 X2 Ref. Turb. ü Aberrations ü Detection ü Alignment ü Opp. Effect üüü Rigid Target üüü

  16. Notes & Recommendations • These phenomena do NOT affect space performance prediction IF prediction is scaled from experimental performance • Develop theory of diffuse dispersed target vs. diffuse rigid target reflectance; connect mean values to first principles of scatterers and to each other • Measure opposition effect of lidar diffuse hard targets and target calibration primary and transfer targets • Repeat Jarzembski et al experiments with several types of particle targets

  17. BACK UP CHARTS

  18. LOTS OF SUSPECTS • Atmospheric refractive turbulence • Optical aberrations • Sub-optimum heterodyne detection • Misalignment • Opposition effect: X2 • Dispersed vs. rigid diffuse target • If LO shot noise = all other noise, rather than >>, then LSE is ½ of ideal • If backscattered light is assumed linear polarized, but is actually randomly polarized, then the SNR will be X2 below expected • If a 50/50 beam splitter is used, SNR falls by X2 (vs. dual det.) • Diffuse target SNR factor of 0.46 (vs. specular) [Goodman, April 1965; “diffuse target loss”?] • The laser pulse moves forward at speed c, while the measured air volume moves forward at speed c/2, X2 • The laser pulse instantaneously illuminates ct length of aerosols, but the instantaneous heterodyne signal is from ct/2 length of aerosols; X2 • Experiments with light choppers and synchronous detection can easily make a X2 error in laser power • Beam diameter vs. radius: X2 • Beam amplitude vs. intensity: X2 in area • Beam 1/e vs. 1/e2: X2 in area

More Related