2.1. Calibration Approach
Following [
1], we model the measured surface-projected radial velocity in the presence of an azimuth knowledge error,
, as
where
t labels the measurement time, or, equivalently, the along-track position;
is the pointing error we seek to calibrate; and
n represents random measurement errors. We only consider errors in azimuth pointing, since, as shown in [
1], the elevation angle can be estimated from the radar timing to much greater accuracy than required here.
We separate into errors which vary quickly ( min), and cannot be calibrated using the approach proposed here, and slowly varying systematic errors ( min), which are our target. Quickly varying errors may be due to residual spin rate changes not captured by the antenna spin encoder; fast oscillations of the antenna structure (e.g., due to thermal snaps at a terminator crossing); or fast mechanical pointing changes not captured by the sensor IMU. We assume these errors can be minimized by adding suitable sensors (IMUs, azimuth angle encoders) to the instrument, by placing suitable requirements on the spacecraft and antenna mechanical structures, or adding them to the random error n.
The slowly varying errors may be due to thermoelastic deformation of the antenna or spacecraft not captured by pre-launch models or masked due to IMU drift; or they could be due to residual errors in the spin encoder sensor, which may fail to capture thermally driven changes in the antenna spin uncaptured by the encoder. The first kind of error will introduce time-varying shifts of the pointing, so that
is uncorrelated with
, and the radial velocity error will be proportional to
. The second kind of errors, which have been observed in the DopplerScatt instrument [
1], will induce
errors which are periodic in
, and may also vary slowly in time. The effect of an order
m harmonic error in
will be to introduce
harmonic errors in
due to the multiplication of
by
in
.
The idea in our proposed algorithm is to use the fact that, over long wavelengths, the ocean circulation is uncorrelated with , whereas both of the systematic error sources have signatures which are periodic in . The first step in the algorithm is to bin into bins and estimate the average radial velocity as a function of . The minimum amount of time needed to perform the binning is given by the antenna rotation period, sec for ODYSEA.
In the absence of surface currents, this binning would be sufficient to produce a calibration of . However, as we will see below, if uncompensated, ocean motion may introduce significant errors in the estimates of . One way to reduce this leakage is to average along-track so that ocean features average out. The spatial scale of ocean currents and the platform velocity set the required averaging times. For most of the oceans, mesoscale eddies (diameter km) contribute much of the ocean leakage. Given typical spacecraft velocities, this would imply that the averaging time would need to be on the order of minute. There are, however, very long wavelength circulation patterns, such as western boundary currents (e.g., the Gulf Stream) or equatorial circulation, have significantly longer wavelengths and may produce geographically localized leakage if the averaging time is too short.
A potential way to mitigate for ocean currents is to use the fact that, at large scales, ocean circulation can be estimated independently by existing sensors (e.g., altimeters and scatterometers), or represented with sufficient skill by operational ocean circulation models. We can sample these
prior models to the same space-times as the radar observations and produce
, the prior estimate of the ocean circulation, which we can then subtract from the radial velocity observations to reduce the leakage from ocean motion.
Section 2.4 discusses possible priors that could be used in the timeframe of the ODYSEA mission.
If we denote by
the operation of binning observations by
followed by along-track averaging for a time
T, the following equations summarize the estimation algorithm for
where
is the estimator for the pointing error correction; the first term on the right-hand side is the desired result; the second term represents the residual ocean leakage (after potentially removing a prior estimate of ocean motion); and the last term is the residual random error. We perform the temporal averaging by using a sliding, uniformly-weighted window of time-duration
T, and associate with it a time
t at the center of the window. It is possible that the averages may contain data over land or ice, and these data are discarded, so that the data in the moving window does not always contain the same number of samples, or may be missing altogether if insufficient data are present to form the averages.
2.2. Pointing Error Characteristics
The calibration model introduced above can accommodate any set of distortions that dependent on the azimuth angles and vary slowly enough so that ocean leakage and random errors can be averaged out. The model is not parametric and can accommodate arbitrary pointing characteristics that satisfy these requirements. Some errors considered here (e.g., thermoelastic distortions) are amenable to parametric modeling given a mechanical design, and the accuracy of the models at the microradian level may be hard to achieve or validate. While such models will undoubtedly help to improve pointing calibration, our goal here is more conservative: we examine the feasibility of using a generic model, with limited parametrization, that can accommodate a wide variety of feasible pointing error distortions.
Since
is periodic, the most generic model for
that satisfies these requirements can be written as
where
N is the number of azimuth bins. Environmental parameters, such as variations in solar radiation along the orbit, will determine the specific form of the temporal variation of the harmonic coefficients. Without making any parametric assumptions about this variability, we assume that, for short enough periods compared to the characteristic times of drivers of the distortion, the temporal variability of the systematic pointing error can be modeled as a first order autoregressive (AR1) process, namely:
where
is a zero-mean Gaussian variable, and
is the update time between azimuth binning. This will result in a random process that has an exponential correlation time given by
. The variance of
is related to the total variance of
by
. Due to the linearity of the Fourier transform,
,
,
will also be AR1 processes with correlation time
. However, there is freedom to choose their contribution to the total variance, as long as the sum of the variances adds to the total variance. Below, we will investigate the effects of distributing the error between different harmonics; i.e., high- or low-frequency dominant errors.
It is instructive to examine the effect of different harmonics in the
expansion on the surface current errors. Following [
1], the radial velocity error can be translated into errors in the along-track,
, and cross-track,
, surface current components, and the results for the ODYSEA swath are shown in
Figure 1. It is clear that the spatial frequency of the velocity errors increases with harmonic order. For low order harmonics, the errors will induce errors across the swath that are clearly unphysical and might be corrected using basin-scale circulation models. Higher harmonics will start to mimic mesoscale signatures and may have greater impact on meeting science goals. The ODYSEA mission [
6,
7], for instance, can meet most of its science goals by filtering out longer wavelengths (e.g., by applying a Gaussian filter whose width is 130 km) and concentrating on the residual mesoscale signals. In
Figure 1, we show the residual errors after applying such a filter: lower-order harmonics have almost no contribution to the mesoscale errors.
It should be noted that, while we use the time-varying harmonic expansion to characterize the physical impact of different errors, and their relationship to sources in the hardware, the calibration algorithm introduced in the previous section does not estimate the harmonic expansion coefficients. Rather, it estimates , the net correction that must be applied to the radial velocity, independent of its source. The estimation of the harmonic expansion coefficients is not required for radial velocity correction, although it may be informative for understanding the error sources, and suffers additional estimation errors.
2.3. Data Simulator
We have built a global measurement simulator to assess the feasibility of the pointing calibration. The simulator uses two weeks of the ODYSEA orbit and generates space and time locations over the radar footprint for each antenna pointing location, radar range, and Doppler scatterometer pulse-pair. These data were then averaged over each radar footprint and pulse burst to generate an average radial velocity for each burst location. This is similar to the process that would be implemented during processing of the data as inputs to the calibration algorithm. The angular extent of the burst footprint is small enough that no useful information is lost, given the angular resolution of the azimuth binning used, which utilizes 1024 bins.
Two global ocean simulations were used to feed the ODYSEA simulator. The first is an uncoupled ocean simulation, and the second is a coupled ocean-atmosphere simulation. The reasoning is that the uncoupled simulation has a spacing grid resolution of ∼2 km, which permits the generation of a more vigorous small-scale ocean motions. Whereas the coupled simulation produces a more vigorous internal gravity wave continuum and wind-driven currents not well resolve in the uncoupled simulation.
The global high-resolution LLC-4320 (Latitude-Longitude-polar Cap 4320) model dataset features a horizontal spacing grid resolution of 1/48° and includes 90 vertical levels. The vertical resolution varies from 0.5 m at the sea surface ad 480 m at the seafloor. The model is forced by the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Atmospheric Reanalysis data, with a resolution of
and updated every 6 hours. A more detailed description of the model can be found in Torres et al. [
14].
The COAS (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Simulation) model consists of the GEOS atmospheric and land model coupled to an ocean configuration of the MITgcm. GEOS was configured to run with a nominal horizontal grid spacing of 6.9 km and 72 vertical levels, while the MITgcm was configured to run with a nominal horizontal grid spacing of
(up to 4.6 km at the equator) and 90 vertical levels. Both models are integrated and coupled every 45 s. Model outputs contain hourly three-dimensional atmospheric fields, and many diagnostic variables. A detailed description of COAS can be found in Torres et al. [
6]. Further details of the GEOS configuration can be found in Molod et al. [
15] and Strobach et al. [
16], while MITgcm setup is described in Arbic et al. [
17].
2.4. Ocean Prior Data
We consider ocean prior datasets that either simulate satellite measurement capabilities currently available, or use global data acquired by the Doppler scatterometer itself.
To simulate current satellite capabilities, we generated datasets that mimic the AVISO [
18] and OSCAR [
19] global products. The AVISO product uses altimeter measurements from multiple platforms to generate a global estimate of
geostrophic currents. These currents do not contain ageostrophic components, such as wind-driven Ekman currents. The OSCAR product aims to add these wind driven currents by using winds from multiple scatterometer instruments, together with a simple model for the wind-driven currents. We follow a standard procedure to generate the satellite-like products by filtering the reference simulation (either LLC-4320 or COAS) in space and time. The AVISO-like (or geostrophic) dataset was generated by applying a 3-day running mean filter and 60 km diameter Gaussian spatial filter to the sea surface height. Afterwards, the geostrophic surface currents are computed, excluding the equatorial band, where geostrophy does not apply. To mimic OSCAR products, we analyzed OSCAR real-time Level 4 dataset provided by PO.DAAC (
https://doi.org/10.5067/OSCAR-25N20). The analysis consisted of computing a frequency-wavenumber spectrum to determine the scales of variation resolved by OSCAR. The surface currents from COAS were low-passed with a 4-day running mean and 60 km diameter Gaussian filter.
Figure 2 shows sample spectra for the OSCAR product used in our analysis, and the OSCAR-like and geostrophic products obtained by filtering the COAS simulation. Notice the close agreement between the OSCAR and OSCAR-like products and the reduced energy for the geostrophic currents.
Aside from priors derived from other satellites, it is possible to use the Doppler scatterometer data itself to generate ocean priors. One of the limitations of the OSCAR data is that the wind measurements are not collected at the same time as the surface currents. In addition, the wind-driven surface currents are parametrized as due to Ekman currents alone. Using the COAS model as truth, we derive an empirical wind-driven current by starting with the winds and currents estimated by the Doppler scatterometer, subtract a geostrophic current from the AVISO-like product (where available), compute the along and across-wind components of the residual currents, and average the results conditioned by wind speed. Since the response of the currents to winds will have a latitudinal dependence (see [
19]), the globe is divided into 5-degree latitude bins and a separate estimate is obtained for each bin. Once the averages of the along and across-wind current components are obtained, one can estimate the wind speed dependence of the wind-driven current magnitude and direction relative to the wind. We find that a linear fit with wind speed is a good approximation to the data.
Figure 3 shows the values for the constant,
, and wind-speed proportionality coefficient,
, for the magnitude and direction of the wind-driven currents. Away from the tropics, there is a negligible
term for the current magnitude, while there will be a current whose magnitude is approximately 1% of the wind speed and which will be rotated approximately
relative to the wind direction (depending on hemisphere). These results are qualitatively similar to Ekman currents. In the tropics, on the other hand, there is a stronger mean current along the wind direction, and stronger dependence on wind speed. This is not unexpected when geostrophy does not apply. Given these model fits, we construct a prior model for the wind driven current by fitting a smooth spline through the data, as shown in
Figure 3. This wind driven current prior can then be used by itself, or in conjunction with an AVISO-like estimate of the geostrophic currents.
As a final ocean prior model, we consider the current climatology obtained by averaging the Doppler scatterometer data over a period of time (two weeks, in our case). Averaging the Doppler scatterometer data will average out, to some extent, the pointing errors when their correlation time is much shorter than the time over which the current "climatology" is constructed. The resulting climatology will only be weakly correlated with the instantaneous pointing errors, but will represent well the long wavelength, low frequency ocean circulation.
To assess the geographic variability of the prior, we present in
Figure 4 the global mean and standard deviation of the residual radial velocities. After subtracting the geostrophic currents, the residuals are only reduced at mid-latitudes, but equatorial and Southern Ocean currents, where ageostrophy dominates, are not well represented. The empirical Ekman and combined geostrophic and Ekman do much better in reducing the residuals in these regions, but significant residuals can still be seen in the tropics, where the simple empirical model has only limited skill, and in the Southern Ocean, where transient strong wind events are not well captured by a static model. Next in skill is the two-week climatology, which, since it uses actual observations, does a better job at capturing equatorial circulation. However, a two-week climatology still misses strong transient wind events. Finally, the most skillful prior is the OSCAR-like product which does the best at capturing equatorial currents and transients. There is a concern, however, that, since the simulated data was produced from the true model by simple space-time averaging, it may have more dynamics skill that the current generation of OSCAR products have, but may represent model skill when ODYSEA is deployed.