Calibration of on-orbit IR sensors by off-board illumination of

neighboring satellites
Munson A. Kwoka*, Lorraine E. Ryana*, Randy M. Villahermosaa; Joseph L. Coxb
a
The Aerospace Corporation, 2350 E. El Segundo Blvd, El Segundo, CA. 90245, USA
b
The Missile Defense Systems Group, 483 N. Aviation Blvd, El Segundo, CA. 90245, USA

ABSTRACT

Space borne overhead non-imaging (non-focusing) infrared (ONIR) sensors require on-orbit calibration to
validate performance of sensor payloads. Typically this is accomplished by the use of ground based
observations including laser illumination of the calibrated sensor. This provides a-priori knowledge of the
laser characteristics and atmospheric propagation thereby providing the sensor operators a method for
deducing the true system level performance. Of concern is the need to avoid laser illumination of other
satellites to prevent inadvertent damage or temporary mission degradation. The complex predictive
avoidance process is necessarily bureaucratic and time-consuming due to the need to entertain the interests
of multiple stakeholders. Herein is described a method for mutual calibration of co-orbital ONIR sensors by
use of incoherent off-board illumination of a sample with known spectral reflectivity. The method will not
involve laser illumination, will be less threatening to neighboring spacecraft, and will not require predictive
avoidance processes.

Keywords: Calibration, on-orbit, overhead non-imaging infrared sensors (ONIR)

*Members of SPIE

1. INTRODUCTION

The need to understand the performance changes form ground based sensor calibration to that achieved on-
orbit has driven many satellite overhead non-imaging infrared (ONIR)** providers to complex, multi-
source, on-orbit calibration schemes. These have included the used of flight calibration mechanisms 1, star
observations, stationary ground emission sources, ground truth (sea surfaces, lakes, deserts) and well
characterized ground-based lasers. The latter method has in-situ truth data available, e.g., emission,
intensity, waveband content. However, the effects of the atmospheric, local diurnal biases and other
variables can be eliminated by basing a calibrated emission source in space on a companion or constellation
neighbor vehicle. Obviously, constellation neighbors’ collocation in time and space, separation distances,
viewing angles and target board uniformity, complexity including weight and power and other performance
uncertainties need to be estimated. This paper presents the preliminary evaluation for one type of flight
calibration board. The design details and concept trades are yet to be done.
** ONIR known also as OPIR, Overhead Persistent Infrared2

2. CONCEPT DESCRIPTION

This concept originated during a discussion on calibration shortcomings with in-flight calibration methods,
e.g., non-common path errors, the affects of the space environment on mirror coatings and contaminants
when the calibration sources are contained within the telescope and other uncertainties as noted by other
satellite designers.3
The concept is applicable to most flight Infrared sensor systems. Most of the estimated performance used
for the feasibility study considered the Mid- and Long-Wave Infrared Bands (MW and LW), nominally 3 to
5 and 5 to 8 micrometers. Placing the flight calibration sources on a “buddy” constellation satellite is an
approach theorized to improve the operator’s knowledge of the sensor performance from beginning of life
(BOL) knowledge to end-of-life (EOL). The approach takes advantage of the constellation numbers and
operational constraints for the satellites to work together, e.g., maintain formations and communications.
The approach considered that with early allocations for size, weight and power these calibration boards can
meet Space Vehicle, SV, allocations. The wise selection of materials and surface types and finishes can
allow the calibration “black- bodies” to be incorporated into the SV’s thermal control design.
Generally, by measuring a known radiation (instrumented) surface on the neighboring satellite, the system
undergoing calibration will be able to calibrate both in-band and broad-band responses. Therefore, the pre-
launch, ground based measurements can be periodically validated.

2.1 Generic constellation description

Notionally a circular Low Earth Orbit was evaluated at three altitudes: 800, 1000 and 1200km. The number
of Space Vehicles in the constellations analyzed was 6, 9 or 12.
Earth coverage from this altitude was based on a notional field of regard with the sensors near-nadir
pointing.
Figure2.1 is a depiction of this simple orbit configuration and spacing considered for these vehicles.
N=6
Earth radius 6378 km Earth

x y
B
CONOPS A

• B on position or rotate to
z
calibration board about Z
• A points to B within FOR
excursion about X (AZ) and AZ-EL
Y (EL)
A as sensor B as target
• Calibration conducted on A
sensor

Figure 2.1 Sketch of Notional Constellation, A shows Space Vehicle with viewing sensor and, B, Depiction of
Calibration Board mounted on Target Vehicle

2.2 Satellite, space vehicle conceptual design assumptions

To develop the calibration board concept several SV configurations and flight operational concepts were
established.

The orbital velocity for each vehicle, the solar orientation for the sensor, placement of any appendages such
as the solar arrays or antenna booms for both line-of-sight and surface thermal control were considered and
a list of constraints were established.
These can be summarized:
• Satellite orbit velocity is 7.5 km/sec.
 • Sun angle will be mostly behind the sensor view in daylight Solar arrays to be deployed, away
from calibration board LOS
• Albedo is negligible for MW and LW Infrared regimes
• Satellite at 30°C (waste heat, Earth, solar radiation)

During this first discussion some guidelines for the calibration surfaces were down selected and written
down:
• A flat geometry was selected so that back-of-the-envelope calculations could be made and easily
scaled
• A Lambertian, high reflectance, low absorptions surface was used. Although the concept
development team did identify other options including other geometric shapes and surface
finishes, for this phase of feasibility, only the simple geometry was evaluated with perfect
uniformity and high thermal conductivity.
• To keep Space Vehicle Size, Weight, and power under control no concept that included “light”
emitting sources was considered (no additional power than nominal flight thermal control heaters).
• Since uniformity, temperature control and temperature knowledge were necessary an approached
using normal flight heaters, instrumented with thermal control sensors, telemetry and surface
analysis was selected.
• The use of the calibration board as an equipment compartment radiator for SV thermal control was
incorporated into the guidelines by this team. However, detailed trades will be necessary during a
design concept phase to arrive at the best parameters for dual use-Calibration and Thermal
Radiator.

2.2.1 Calibration board design approach

The team next set down some specific features based on the estimated size and configuration of a
“typical” space vehicle and some basic properties, e.g., alpha sub-s.

These concept constraints were:

• Calibration board shall be rectangular: 1 x 2.5-m
• Board shall be mounted on surface orthogonal to solar panels
• One or two boards, opposite each other, can be considered
• Since calibration board probably replaces MLI in an area
- Board solar absorbance α ≤ α-MLI in same area
- Board emissivity ε ≥ ε-MLI, for MW, LWIR
• Two types of surfaces will be traded
- Graphite epoxy composite panel, rough finish, thermally conductive
- Space qualified white paint (low solar absorbance, high MW, LW emittance)
• Single thermistor diagnostic, around centroid of board, v. array
• Structural support TBD, but also GR-EX for CTE*** match with thermal isolation.

***Coefficient of thermal Expansion

2.2.2 Range feasibility estimate

Feasibility of this concept required a range estimate between the sensor system and the calibration
board. The notional altitudes were used to calculate the spacing for three constellations of 6, 9 and 12
Space Vehicles. Figure 2.2 lists these spacing with the 12 vehicle constellation allowing for the
shortest target to sensor measurement distances. The 9 member constellation presents ranges from the
SV to the targets that are also attractive to sensor designers, since they are representative of nominal
operational ranges.
 Space Sensor Range to Vehicle
with Calibration Board
N=6 N=9 N=12
θzen= 30º θzen= 20º θzen= 15º
or N = 12
alt. satellites
θzen

A = 800 km --- km 4910 km 3716 km

A = 1000 km 7378 km 5047 km 3819 km
A= 1200 km 7578 km 5184 km 3923 km

Range Rate = 0 km/sec. Δά and Δέ = 0 º/sec

Condition A=800 km and N=6 does not clear limb of Earth
With ring N = 12, one can calibrate at two ranges
Condition A=1000 km and N=6, board is viewed through the
atmosphere
Geometric Example of ranges

Figure 2.2 Sensor to calibration board range estimated

2.2.3 Estimate of earth limb background

In evaluating the geometric access between constellation vehicles, the concept team was concerned
that a Focal Plan Array matched to its telescope would image the earth limb during the calibration and
have a high bias error term.

An evaluation was conducted to understand this potential impact. The calculation presented on Table
2.1 for an IFOV (Instantaneous Field of View) of 25 microradians shows that earth limb will not be an
issue. In addition, it is desired to have the calibration board be very large relative to the point spread
function of the system and these calculations support this objective.

Limb angle-γ, (milliradians)

N=6 N=9 N=12

θzen= 30º θzen= 20º θzen= 15º
or N = 12
alt. Satellites (Earth
limb to LOS distance)

A = 800 km --- 140 280

A = 1000 km “0” (12 km) 209 365

A= 1200 km 43.5 (185 km) 277 439

Table 2.1 Evaluation of Limb Background
 Notes and Assumption for Table 2.1: ONIR sensors are focal plane arrays
Assume a sensor A with telescope and LWIR FPA with 256 x 256 pixels (SOA)
Assume pixel IFOV of 25 μrad, where IFOV is instantaneous field-of-view.
∴FOV is 6.4 millirad (1/2FOV=3.2 millirad)
Seek actual limb angle γ >> 3.2 millirad for LOS-centered pixel

2.2.4 Radiometric estimate

An estimate of the radiometric response for a LWIR (Long Wave Infrared) sensor was calculated based on
the assumptions and equations:

• Estimate the number of LWIR photo-electrons (pe’s) on pixel for Radiometric Feasibility
• 1) T= in ambient eclipse ≅ 0°C or 2) T2 = 20°C
• pe’s/sec. on one pixel emitted from calibration board
– P = ηQE Ω Atb ∫[ ε(λ)ηf(λ)fco(λ) NBB(λ, T)]dλ
• η is receiver throughput, vignetted, transmitted
• QE is quantum efficiency of receiver pixel (TIS)
• fco is LWIR cutoff of pixel material (TIS data)
• ηf are receiver bandpass filters (1, 0.2μ band)
• Ω is solid angle (ster.) defined by receiver aperture D and range R to calibration
board (D=0.3m)
• Atb is projected area of calibration board (m2)
– uniform, isotropic unpolarized, Lambertian
• ε is emissivity of board (assume constant)
• NBB is the blackbody radiance of board

Results are tabulated on Table 2.2. This feasibility check was performed to assure that the space sensor
in flight will receive sufficient signal.

N=6 N=9 N=12

θzen= 30º θzen= 20º θzen= 15º
or N = 12 (x105) (x105)
alt. Satellites
(x105)
A = 800 km --- 4.7 8.2
A = 1000 km --- 4.4 7.8
A= 1200 km 2.0 4.2 7.4

Table 2.2 Estimated Number of Photoelectrons/sec. Generated at Pixel

By Calibrator
(no multiplication layers on sensing layer)

Notes and Assumptions: Model assumes an 8μ cut-on filter and flat filter through LWIR. MCT
Sensing layer spectral data typical of FPAs
developed by government. Sensor telescope aperture is 30 cm with effective magnification of 104.
Magnification roughly defines the number of telescope stages and, assuming a configuration, the
number of mirror surfaces. Board T=0°C.
For A=1200 km, N =6, increasing T by 20°C raises number to only 2.8 x 105.

2.2.5 Effect of viewing other surfaces on the Space Vehicle

The sensor’s view of the Calibration Board may also have interferences from other SV surfaces, e.g.,
radiation from the adjacent equipment compartments, deployed solar arrays. Operational concepts can
be implemented to minimize the sensor’s view to the calibration boards surrounding environment.
Those basic grounds rules which were used during the feasibility assessment to calculate these
contributions or measurement “interferences” were:

• Spacecraft cross section in view (MLI wrapped)

- Side profile assumed 1.25 m x 3.0 m; 33% not calibration board
- Surface temperature about the same T (30°C) ~ operational ambient
- Strategies for calibrator
– Calibration board area to dominate side panel
– Heat board (or cool spacecraft) surface relative to backing
• Appendages (i.e. solar arrays) in profile
- Notional design: 2 deployed arrays of 5 panels at side panel size
- Strategies for calibrator
– Measure in the eclipse to cool appendages (reach -70°C) 4
– Turn arrays toward edge as needed

Table 2.3 lists the calculated radiation level from the adjacent background or other surfaces that may
be measured by the viewing sensor. The calculated values are fractional contributions to the
assumptions made for the baseline and imply that the board will dominate the radiance measure by the
space sensor.

Key Parameter Interfering

Radiance
ε A/AB T(°C) Fraction
Situation (fraction of
Board Radiance)
Spacecraft 0.45 0.5 0 0.25
background
Solar panels: 0.45 12 -70 1.83
full view
Solar panels: 0.45 8 -70 1.29
45° view
Solar panels on 0.45 0.2 -70 0.03
edge, 5 cm-thick
Table 2.3 Spacecraft surfaces contribution to the sensors measurement based on the assumption that
calibration board radiance is 787 Watts, ε = 0.9, AB = 2.5 m2, T = 0°C.

2.2.6 Space Radiator Assessment

Since the calibration board will occupy one of the equipment compartment surfaces it will/may also
need to function as a radiator.

The analysis indicated that with design approach integrated with the SV thermal control program, the
calibration board may provide heat load management.

Specifically sizing the calibration board as a blackbody radiator indicates that 1.0 x 2.5 m2 board will
radiate in an hemisphere approximately:
- 787 watts at 0°C, ε = 0.9
- 1077 watts at 30°C, ε = 0.9
- 1390 watts at 50°C, ε = 0.9

In addition, Knowledge and control of the calibration board’s surface temperature is basic.
Implementing heat/cooling flight proven methods, such as, heat pipes over the required surface to
achieve a controllable spatial uniformity (at least for the 4X4 pixels) as viewed by the sensor. This is
important and will be incorporated into the future design concepts.
A trade will eventually be necessary to decide on the best of the flight qualified components, e.g.,
down-selection among such technologies as heater patches, heat pipes or capillary heat pipes.

2.2.7 Materials

Surface materials must be chosen for initial properties and their aging in the space environment should
be predictable. The initial list selected is based on flight proven thermal control surface treatments.
As the concept is matured more materials may be added and properties may be enhanced by the
selection of surface finish (smoothness or roughness) and surface uniformity.

Table 2.4 lists the initial candidates;

Thermal BOL* EOL*

Comment
Material/Coating a e a e
Al-Kapton® 2 mil thick; EOL is 5 years;
0.39 0.73 0.67 0.73
(baseline) baseline for comparison
Ref: AZ Technology Corp.; ≥ 5 mil
thick; EOL for a is 4 years, space
AZ93 0.15 0.91 0.15 0.90
station orbit; EOL for e is based on
lab testing
Graphite Epoxy 0.93 0.85 0.93 0.85 Generic material for composites
Z306 Black Paint 0.95 0.87 0.92 0.87 3 mil thick; EOL is 5 years in GEO

Table 2.4 Calibration board materials

3. FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS

The feasibility of designing a Infrared Broadband Calibration board on constellation member space
vehicles has been investigated.
 Preliminary conceptual considerations for deploying one type of flight calibration board in a satellite
constellation have been shown. However, the design details and concept trades are yet to be done and
will be the focus of future activities. .

REFERENCES

1. van de Berg, Leo; Pessanha, Luis; Buhler, Yves; Konig, Marianne; and Pili, Paolo; “On the
Calibration of present and future Meteosat Infra-Red sensors.” SPIE Vol. 3498, 0277-786X/98,
Barcelona Spain, Sept.1998
2. Memorandum, National System for Geospatial Intelligence, Jan 7, 2009, G-2008-0836
3. Schott, J. R.; Gallagher, T.W.; Barsi, J. “Calibration procedures for evaluation of in-flight
radiometry performance of thermal infrared satellite sensors.”
4. Aerospace Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, 2008-09-24

Approved for Public Release

08-MDA-4309 (13 MAR 09)
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.