1 / 14

ASAR Validation Review Geometric Accuracy and Interferometric Applications

ASAR Validation Review Geometric Accuracy and Interferometric Applications J ürgen Holzner Remote Sensing Technology Institute German Aerospace Center (DLR). Overview. Objectives Results for the Image Location Accuracy ENVISAT/ ASAR Interferometry. Objectives.

quemby-joyce
Download Presentation

ASAR Validation Review Geometric Accuracy and Interferometric Applications

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. ASAR Validation Review Geometric Accuracy and Interferometric Applications Jürgen HolznerRemote Sensing Technology InstituteGerman Aerospace Center (DLR)

  2. Overview • Objectives • Results for the Image Location Accuracy • ENVISAT/ ASAR Interferometry

  3. Objectives • ensure optimal image location accuracy • show the feasibility of ENVISAT/ ASAR interferometry

  4. Approach – Image Location Accuracy • determination of the azimuth and range timing offsets. • comparison of predicted and measured positions of strong point targets (transponders, corner reflectors) in slant-range / azimuth co-ordinate system. • predicted positions are obtained with Zero – Doppler iteration.

  5. Netherlands Test Site Results swifterbant (rg x az) mean : 4.10 x 5.42 sigma : 0.11 x 0.30 edam (rg x az) mean: 3.75 x 3.97 sigma: 0.09 x 0.29 zwolle (rg x az) mean : 3.46 x 3.63 sigma : - 48 km aalsmeer (rg x az) mean: 2.97 x 4.10 diff.: 0.27 x 0.39 91 km

  6. Preliminary Results for Other Than IS2 and IS4 Beams and Modes Swifterbant Transponder

  7. Oberpfaffenhofen Test Site Result CR2 (rg x az) 3.40 x 4.43 CR6 (rg x az) 3.36 x 4.45 CR3 (rg x az) 3.74 x 4.87 23 km 32 km

  8. Conclusion on SWST Bias Evaluation (I) • location accuracy transponder/ CR dependent.  transponders’/ CRs’ position or internal delay inaccuracies. • transponders Edam and Swifterbant offer consistent time series in accordance with corner reflector results. • range timing offset may be beam dependent.  further evaluation necessary!

  9. Conclusion on SWST Bias Evaluation (II) • based on this data a range timingoffset (sampling window start time bias) of (29 ± 3) m is obtained.  further monitoring recommended (ascending data sets)! • an azimuth timing offset of (18 ± 4) m is determined based on (restituted/ DORIS orbits).  check orbit consistency restituted/ DORIS to predicted!  check time correlation pair determination/ accuracy!  further monitoring recommended!

  10. ENVISAT/ ASAR Interferometry Results: Las Vegas orbits beam mode temporal baseline spatial perp. baseline height conversion factor coherence range 2092 / 3094 IS 2 IM 70 days 420 m 25 m up to 0.83

  11. Phase and Coherence

  12. timing correction of 4 range samples Differential Interferogram Co-registration

  13. First ENVISAT/ ASAR DEM Las Vegas ( 36.2 N ; 115.2 W ) 181 m 3495 m

  14. Conclusion on ENVISAT/ ASAR Interferometry Results • for Las Vegas test site high coherence even over 70 days was preserved. • high quality interferometric data can be obtained from ENVISAT/ ASAR image mode products. • differential interferogram co-registration verifies proposed range timing correction. • a first DEM based on ENVISAT/ ASAR interferometry was presented.

More Related