Performance Verification of the Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier
Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS) On-board Blackbody Calibration
System
Fred A. Besta, Henry E. Revercomba, David C. Tobina, Robert O. Knutesona, Joseph K. Taylora,
Donald J. Thielmana, Douglas P. Adlera, Mark W. Wernera, Scott D. Ellingtona, John D. Elwellb,
Deron K. Scottb, Gregory W. Cantwellb, Gail E. Binghamb, and William L. Smithc
a
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
b
Utah State University, Logan, UT
c
Hampton University, Hampton, VA
ABSTRACT
The NASA New Millennium Program’s Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS) instrument
was designed to provide enormous advances in water vapor, wind, temperature, and trace gas profiling from
geostationary orbit. The top-level instrument calibration requirement is to measure brightness temperature to better than
1 K (3 sigma) over a broad range of atmospheric brightness temperatures, with a reproducibility of ±0.2 K. For the onboard calibration approach used by GIFTS that employs two internal blackbody sources (290 K and 255 K) plus a space
view sequenced at regular programmable intervals, this instrument level requirement places tight requirements on the
blackbody temperature uncertainty (0.1 K) and emissivity uncertainty (0.001). The blackbody references are cavities
that follow the UW Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) design, scaled to the GIFTS beam size. The
engineering model blackbody system was completed and fully calibrated at the University of Wisconsin and delivered
for integration into the GIFTS Engineering Development Unit (EDU) at the Utah State Space Dynamics Laboratory.
This paper presents a detailed description of the methodology used to establish the required temperature and emissivity
performance, with emphasis on the traceability to NIST standards. In addition, blackbody temperature data are presented
from the GIFTS EDU thermal vacuum tests that indicate excellent temperature stability. The delivered on-board
blackbody calibration system exceeds performance goals – the cavity spectral emissivity is better than 0.998 with an
absolute uncertainty of less than 0.001, and the absolute blackbody temperature uncertainty is better than 0.06 K.
Keywords: Imaging, FTS (Fourier Transform Spectrometer), Radiometric, Calibration, Blackbody, Remote Sensing
1. INTRODUCTION
The Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS) instrument requires highly accurate radiometric
calibration in order to provide its enormous advances in water vapor, wind, temperature, and trace gas profiling from
geostationary orbit1-3. The unique GIFTS radiometric calibration scheme uses two internal blackbody sources located
behind the instrument telescope, combined with a space view, to provide end-to-end instrument calibration accuracy
better than 1 K (3-sigma)4-9. The reproducibility is better than ±0.2 K. The calibration scheme builds on well-established
general techniques for calibrating interferometer instruments10-12. There is a significant advantage to the internal
blackbody approach used by GIFTS, in large part because it is practical to achieve a high emissivity with a small size (1
inch aperture) blackbody. Because the blackbodies are small and internally located, they also provide significant
immunity from solar forcing. The blackbodies are periodically viewed via a flip-in mirror that is located near the field
stop behind the instrument telescope (Figure 1). The blackbodies, which are independently controlled to different
temperatures, are located on a translating table that positions either the ambient (255 K) or hot (290 K) blackbody into
the calibration position - filling the interferometer field of view with the appropriate hot or ambient view. An instrumentlevel GIFTS calibration model involving blackbody temperature and temperature uncertainty, blackbody emissivity and
emissivity uncertainty, telescope and flat mirror element temperatures, as well as structural temperatures has been
developed and used to assess and budget the allowable blackbody parameter uncertainties needed to meet the overall
Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Remote Sensing Technology, Techniques, and Applications
edited by William L. Smith Sr., Allen M. Larar, Tadao Aoki, Ram Rattan, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405, 64050I, (2006)
0277-786X/06/$15 · doi: 10.1117/12.698021
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-1
GIFTS calibration requirement. The error budget allocation for the blackbody subsystem is 0.5 K (3 sigma)6. The
contributions to this error include the blackbody measurement uncertainty ( 0.1 K), and emissivity uncertainty (0.002).
There is also a requirement that the surrounding environmental temperature that can reflect back out of the blackbody
must be known to within 5 K.
c6OK
OMVVifl rifler aria ueteciDr MriBy
LWIR PlItsr id Dactor Any
IFC Flip-in Mirror (240K)
Figure 1. The GIFTS EDU optical layout shows the location of the Flip-in mirror (left panel). Both blackbodies are
mounted on a linear slide mechanism that positions the desired source in the field of view of the interferometer, via the
activated Flip-in mirror (right panel).
Table 1 summarizes the blackbody subsystem specifications that flow down from the GIFTS top-level instrument
calibration requirement. The right-hand column lists the current best estimate for each parameter at the time of delivery
of the engineering model system.
Table 1. Blackbody subsystem specifications with as-delivered estimates of performance.
nrium
wlmlm-(a
•€Tht1:Iizttffittfl
Ambient Blaekbody Nominal Set Point
255 K
Hot Blackbody Nominal Set Point
290 K
290 K
<0.1 K (3 sigma)
<0.056 K (3 sigma)
Ambient Blsckbody Eminninity
>0.996
>0.999
Hot Blackbody Eminsinity
>0.996
>0.999
Eminninity Uncertainty
<0.002 (3 sigma)
<0.00072 (3 sigma)
Wanelangth
690 - 2,300 cm-i
680 - 2,300 cm-i
2.54cm
2.54cm
Temperature Measurement Uncertainty
Source Aperture
Source POV (full angle)
Mann (two blackbodien plan controller)
Power average/man
Ennulopa
255 K
> 10
> 10
<2 4 kg
<2 1 kg
<2 2i5.2 W
<2 2/5.2 W
<8n8a15.Scm
<SasxtsAcm
Section 2 of this paper gives an overview of the blackbody subsystem that includes two blackbodies and a controller that
provides temperature measurement and control. Section 3 describes the temperature calibration approach that starts with
the calibration of the controller electronics on-board reference resistors, and then proceeds to the end-to-end temperature
calibration that uses a temperature standard that is tightly coupled to the cavity along with the calibrated controller
electronics. Section 4 describes the blackbody cavity painting procedure and the determination of emissivity. Section 5
presents data collected from the GIFTS EDU testing that demonstrates extremely high temperature stability.
2. SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The GIFTS engineering model on-board blackbody calibration system consists of two blackbody sources and a controller
that provides independent temperature measurement and control for each blackbody. The two blackbodies are identical
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-2
except for the thermistors used for temperature measurement that are tuned for the appropriate operating range (hot or
ambient). The translating slide on which the blackbodies are mounted is attached directly to instrument optics bench.
The controller is contained on one (12” x 6”) electronics card that is located in the Sensor Module electronics box.
U
1 IU
1_d
1:11
/
HH
U
The blackbody design, illustrated in Figure 2, is scaled from the University of Wisconsin (UW) developed Atmospheric
Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) blackbody, scaled to a 1” aperture diameter to accommodate the GIFTS optical
design13,14. The blackbody cavities are machined from aluminum and painted with Aeroglaze Z306 diffuse black paint.
Each blackbody has four thermistors used for temperature measurement, each mounted in a customized housing that
threads into the aluminum cavity wall6. Two of these thermistors are mounted near the apex of the cone and two
mounted diametrically opposite near the junction of cylinder and cone.
Figure 2. The GIFTS EDU blackbody is shown in the photo on the left without the enclosure. The cut-away figure on the
right illustrates the key features of blackbody, including the thermistor locations and painted cavity.
The blackbody controller functional block diagram is presented in Figure 3. The controller provides independent
temperature measurement and control for each blackbody. A key feature of the controller is the self-calibration scheme
that employs the use of on-board reference resistors. These highly stable resistors are read each time the blackbody
thermistor resistances are read, thus significantly reducing measurement uncertainty – measurement accuracy becomes
largely independent of offset and gain drift of the electronics. The calibration of these on-board reference resistors is
performed on the ground as part of the temperature calibration procedure described in the next section.
SOL
Bus
ABa Healer
Figure 3. The blackbody controller provides independent temperature measurement and control for both blackbodies. At
each data collection cycle the on-board reference resistors are measured along with the blackbody thermistor resistances –
providing self-calibration.
3.0 TEMPERATURE CALIBRATION
The blackbody temperature measurement scheme is depicted in Figure 4. Many aspects of this NIST traceable
calibration approach were pioneered for the UW developed AERI ground based instrument and Scanning Highresolution Interferometer Sounder aircraft instrument15-17. Counts associated with the resistance of each thermistor
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-3
temperature sensor and each on-board reference resistor are read by the blackbody controller. The thermistor counts are
converted to calibrated resistance using the counts returned from the on-board reference resistors and the Resistance
Self-calibration Constants that are determined once on the ground using a set of Calibration Resistors (read in place of
the blackbody thermistors). The calibrated resistances from each thermistor are then converted to calibrated temperature
by using the Thermistor Calibration Coefficients. These coefficients are determined during end-to-end temperature
calibration tests, using the calibrated blackbody controller and a temperature calibration standard that is tightly coupled
to the blackbody cavity.
Ground Processing Computer
Blackbody Li
Blackbody
Thermistors
Resistance
Self Calibration
Controller
____________
____________
________________
em?erat
Ito'
esistance
Thermistor Counts
Reference Resistor Counts
Calibration
Resistors
- -,
-
Resistance SelfCalibration
Constants
Used one time on the
ground to calibrate on-board
reference resistors
Calibrated
Temperature
an nr
Figure 4. Block diagram illustrating the steps to get calibrated temperature from the thermistor resistance count data that is
read through the blackbody controller. The key calibration steps involve determining: a) the Resistance Self-calibration
constants, and b) the Thermistor Calibration constants. Both steps employ the use of NIST traceable transfer standards.
To determine the Resistance Self-calibration Constants, 20 highly stable calibration resistors were used over the four
measurement ranges of each blackbody. The calibration resistors were measured using a NIST traceable Agilent 7458A
DVM. The 3 worst-case equivalent temperature error associated with the calibration resistors is 0.2 K. The Resistance
Self-calibration Constants include one unique value for each thermistor channel (associated with the bridge resistance),
and a unique value associated with each of the two on-board reference resistors used for the self-calibration. To cover all
four measurement ranges for each blackbody there are a total of five on-board reference resistors associated with each
blackbody (two reference resistors are used for each range). Fig. 5 shows the extremely high stability of the blackbody
controller, where over a period of 60 days following calibration and prior to delivery, the equivalent temperature error is
shown to be significantly less than 1 mK. The plot represents the resistance measurement error of the blackbody
controller while periodically reading precise and highly stable calibration resistors inserted in each of the eight thermistor
channels, expressed in equivalent thermistor temperature. The series plotted on the top is room temperature and is read
on the right hand axis. Other testing demonstrated that errors due to the expected power supply voltage variations are <
0.2 mK, and errors due to the expected electronics board temperature variation are less than 0.5 mK.
+1 mK
0.9
0.7
0.6
05
t
N
OmKj
to5
I
104
Ooloii'o ro.i
-0-C
-0.7
BCE 11
-0-i
-09
-1 mK
Dot. Siamp_File No.
4-26-05 535
Figure 5. The stability of the blackbody controller resistance measurement capability over a period of 60 days, after
calibration and prior to delivery is shown to be far better than 1 mK.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-4
The end-to-end temperature calibration scheme is illustrated in Figure 6. Custom temperature calibration probes (one for
each blackbody), were tightly coupled thermally to each blackbody cavity. These probes were made at Thermometrics to
UW specifications using their SP-60 thermistors. The calibration probe thermistor resistances were read using a Hart
Scientific 2563 Standard Thermistor Module. Each combined probe and read-out module was calibrated as a unit at Hart
Scientific, to a 3 absolute accuracy of 5 mK, using NIST traceable standards.
Custom made
Thennonetrlcs
SP-60 calibration
standards
Figure 6. Blackbody thermistor calibration scheme functional block diagram.
For the engineering model system, each blackbody was calibrated at 5 temperatures within the measurement range
associated with the nominal temperature set-point (there are four measurement ranges for each blackbody). At each
blackbody calibration temperature, the cavity thermistor resistances were read using the calibrated blackbody controller,
at the same time the cavity temperature was being read by the calibration probe. For each blackbody thermistor, the
resistance and temperature data collected at the five calibration points were used in a least squares fit to the standard
three coefficient Steinhart and Hart thermistor relationship. Fit residuals were very small, never exceeded 0.5 mK.
Table 2 summarizes the temperature calibration uncertainty budget. The 3 uncertainty is 0.056 K which significantly
exceeds the requirement of 0.1 K. Further discussion of the breakdown of the error contributors shown in the table can be
found in the original paper describing the GIFTS blackbody system[6].
Table 2. Blackbody temperature uncertainty budget summary.
Temperature Uncertainty
Temperature Calibration Standard
(Thermometrics SPeC Probe with Hart Scientific 2560 Thernnistor Module)
•fl.iu' a:.i.a(
:k'-lW
0.005
0.056
Blackbody Readout Electronics Uncertainty
Readout Electronics Uncertainty (at deilvy)
I
0.005
0.005
Blackbody Thennistor Temperature Transfer Uncertainty
Gradient Between Temperature Standard and Cavity Thermistors
Calibration Flttinq Equation Residual Error
0.010
0.001
0.010
Cavity Temperature Uniformity Uncertainty
0.025
0.008
0.018
Cavity to Thermistor Gradient Uncerlalnty (nnoMs,naenqee.dgsssve
Thermistor Wire Heat Leak Temperature Bias Unceflaint
Paint Gradient (hthheh fee Sen S nthn* fIBS Tne Bd
ntehfn fne Qecnfl
0.032
Long-term Stability
0.030
0.012
Biackbody Thermistor (asndthi*as'ns'g nwCj
Blackbody Controller Readout Electronic.
0.032
Effective Radiometric Temperature Weighting Factor Uncertainty
Monte Carlo Rev Trace Model Uncertainty In Determining Tilt
SI
535 en)eSedgfaasiff
I
0.030
0.030
nety aSe,med to be the fell nal,a relcilatnd rot the effect in the tense case
thnrmalennirelmtntindmakintcnns&vdtivethennalcoljplintnnsjmptinra)
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-5
0.056
4.0 CAVITY PAINTING AND EMISSIVITY DETERMINATION
The blackbody cavity surfaces are painted with Aeroglaze Z306 diffuse high emissivity black paint. Previous work at the
UW15 has shown that a dry thickness of 0.003 inch is desired for obtaining the maximum expected emissivity of this
paint. This thickness will also keep undesirable temperature gradients through the thickness of the paint to a reasonably
low level for on-orbit conditions. The blackbody cavities were spray painted at the UW using well-established
procedures developed for the AERI and S-HIS instruments. Forty-eight, one inch diameter witness samples were painted
at the same time as the cavities. Four witness samples were held in each of 12 fixtures that were designed to simulate the
painting of the cavity cone (see right photo in Figure 7). These witness samples were used to determine dry paint
thickness, dry paint density, paint emissivity, and paint adhesion integrity. The paint density measurements, along with
mass measurements made of the cavities both before and after painting, provided a means to infer that the desired paint
thickness of 3 mil was applied to the cavities. Direct thickness measurements would have damaged the paint surface.
Figure 7 presents the average of six GIFTS blackbody witness sample emissivity measurements made at Labsphere. For
comparison, emissivity data are plotted from NIST measurements of a sample of Aeroglaze Z306 (painted at NIST for an
unrelated program). The GIFTS blackbody witness samples measured at Labsphere compare favorable with the NIST
measurements, and generally fall well within the 3 uncertainty quoted by NIST for their measurements.
GIFTS EM Blackbody Paint Witness Sample Emissivity - Meaured by Labsphere
0980
0.975
0.970
0.965
0.955
0.950
Fixture holds four
1" dia. samples simulating
cone geometry
0.945
0.940
500
2,000
Wavenumber lcmhI
Figure 7. The GIFTS Engineering Model paint emissivity measurements made by Labsphere (average of six 1” diameter
witness samples). Samples were painted at the same time as the blackbody cavities in fixtures that simulated the cone
geometry (right photo).
In order to determine the cavity emissivity the Monte Carlo ray trace computer program STEEP3 was used18. Inputs to
this model are paint emissivity, paint diffusity, and cavity geometry6,19, as illustrated in the left-hand diagram of Figure8. The right-hand plot in Figure 8 provides the output of the ray-trace model. This plot shows the wavelength
dependence of cavity emissivity vs paint emissivity, which can be parameterized in terms of the Cavity Factor (Cf),
defined in the figure.
The plot on the left of Figure 9 shows a quadratic fit of the wavelength dependence of the Cavity Factor. This
relationship was then folded together with the paint emissivity data to provide the cavity emissivity vs wavenumber plot
shown on the right of Figure 9. The cavity emissivity is greater than 0.998 for all wavenumbers of interest, significantly
exceeding the requirement of 0.996.
Table 3 presents a summary of the emissivity uncertainty budget, which remains the same as that presented in the
original paper describing the GIFTS Blackbody system6. The 3 cavity emissivity uncertainty is 0.00072 which
significantly exceeds the requirement of 0.002. Further discussion of the breakdown of the error contributors shown in
the table can be found in the original paper describing the GIFTS blackbody system.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-6
Paint
Emissivity
4
Cavity
Geometry
0.999
STEEP3
Cavity
Emissivity
Monte Carlo Ray Trace Model
0.998
0.94
0.96
0.98
Paint Emissivity
Figure 8. The GIFTS blackbody cavity emissivity was calculated using the Monte Carlo ray trace model STEEP3. Inputs to
the model are cavity geometry, intrinsic paint emissivity, and paint diffusity. The plot on the right shows the calculated
cavity emissivity at 5, 10, and 15, parameterized in terms of the cavity factor (equation in plot).
GIFTS Blackbody Cavity Factor () Dependence on
Wavelength
GIFTS Blackbody Cavity Emissivity
000.00
it —93.00
90.00
o sw
A1 - -3.900
80.00
—0.0600
70.00
I
-I
50.00
—Fit
• Data
E
o 99OO
3 so.oo
Cf
40.00
-J
30.00
'0
0
05
20
O.SS9CO
0.99090
Wavelength [ii]
I
I
500
0000
I
500
5.0.
2000
2500
b•s 4s-L
Figure 9. The GIFTS blackbody cavity emissivity dependence on wavelength shown in Figure 7 was fit using a quadratic
(left plot). This relationship was then folded with the paint emissivity data using the equation presented in the right panel to
yield cavity emissivity vs wavenumber (right plot).
Table 3. Blackbody emissivity uncertainty budget summary.
Paint Witness Sample Measurement
0.4% Ep
[11
bEp=0.0038
(1/t)*aEp
0.00010
Paint Application Variation
1.0% Ep
[21
bEp=0.0094
(1fl)*AEp
0.00024
Long-term Paint Stability
2.0% Ep
131
6Ep=O.0188
(lIf)*AEp
0.00048
30% f
141
At=1 1.7
(1 Ep)ftA2*aJ
0.00046
Cavity Factor
RSS
Notes:
f=(1-Ep(1-Ec)
f=Cav.ty Factor
Ep=Emissivity of Paint
Ec=Emissivity of cavity
[1] Factor of 1.5 times NISr Staled Accuracy for 2 sigma
(2] Worst case difference belween 1 and 3 coats
[3] 2 x above
[4] Accounts of Cavity Model Uncertainty
* NIST Stated accuracy is 4% of Reflectivity (2 sigma)
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-7
0.00072
5.0 GIFTS EDU TEST RESULTS DEMONSTRATING TEMPERATURE STABILITY
Blackbody temperature data collected during the GIFS Engineering Development Unit testing at the Utah State Space
Dynamics Laboratory earlier this year, demonstrates very high temperature stability. Figure 10 shows that both long and
short-term stability are excellent for the four HBB thermistors. The upper plot presents temperature data from the four
HBB thermistors over a period of about a month, from 8/25 through 9/26 of 2006. The changing gradients within the
HBB shown in this plot are due to the different temperature environments that surround the blackbody for different test
conditions. The lower plot (from 9/6) shows a stability of better than 2 mK over a period of 80 minutes. The lower two
thermistors (A and B) are located at the cavity apex and are expected to read close to the same value, which they do
(within 2 mK). The upper two thermistors (C and D) are located closer to the cavity heater at the junction of the cavity
cone/cylinder junction and are thus running warmer. The 11 mK difference in their readings is most likely due to the
asymmetric external environment of the blackbody. The temperature measurements observed are consistent with
blackbody thermal model predictions.
GIFTS LDU HBB Blackbody Thermistor Temperature
286.60
288.59
Ii
286.58
-ft-i—fl
286.57
U
286.56
+ hbbA
hbbB
286.55
+ hbbC
+ hbbD
I 286.54
II
286.53
1$
0.10 K
286.52
288.51
286.50
8/18
8/23
8/28
9/2
9/12
Date (mm/ddJ
9/17
9/7
9/22
9/27
10/2
GIFTS EDLJ HBB Blackbody Thermistor Temperatures (9106/06)
256.60
760,55
256. 56
0S—W
Q
+hbbA
0.046K
-
-
X0600
256.54
+
+
_____
0.002
256.52
206.50
50:57:36
19:12:00
59:26:24
10:40:46
19:55:52
0.10 K
240 K
Kt
20:06:36
20:24:00
20:36:24
Tim. (hh:mm:..]
Figure 10. The Hot Blackbody thermistor temperature stability, long-term (upper plot) and short-term (lower plot), from
data obtained during GIFTS EDU testing, shows excellent performance.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-8
6.0 SUMMARY
A blackbody calibration system suitable for spaceflight has been developed to meet the demanding requirements of the
GIFTS instrument. The system builds on the strong heritage of the ground and aircraft based FTS instruments developed
at the University of Wisconsin. The engineering model version of this system was fully calibrated and shown to exceed
required temperature and emissivity accuracies. The engineering model system was delivered to the USU Space
Dynamics Laboratory and integrated into the GIFTS Engineering Development Unit, which underwent a full
complement of thermal vacuum testing. During this testing the GIFTS on-board blackbody calibration system exceeded
all performance expectations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The GIFTS Blackbody development effort at the University of Wisconsin was conducted under a subcontract (C922185)
from the Utah State University, Space Dynamics Laboratory. The parent NASA contract number to SDL is NAS100071.
REFERENCES
1.
Smith, W.L., F. Harrison, D. Hinton, J. Miller, M. Bythe, D. Zhou, H. Revercomb, F. Best, H. Huang, R. Knuteson, D.
Tobin, C. Velden, G. Bingham, R. Huppi, A. Thurgood, L. Zollinger, R. Epslin, and R. Petersen: “The Geosynchronous
Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS)” In: Conference on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanography, 11th,
Madison, WI, 15-18 October 2001. Boston, American Meteorological Society, 2001. Pp700-707.
2. Bingham, G.E., R.J. Huppi, H.E. Revercomb, W.L. Smith, F.W. Harrison: “A Geostationary Imaging Fourier Transform
Spectrometer (GIFTS) for hyperspectral atmospheric remote sensing” Second SPIE International Asia-Pacific Symposium
on Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere, Environment, and Space, Sendai, Japan, 9–12 October 2000.
3. Smith, W.L., D.K. Zhou, F.W. Harrison, H.E. Revercomb, A.M. Larar, A.H. Huang, B. Huang: “Hyperspectral remote
sensing of atmospheric profiles from satellites and aircraft” Second SPIE International Asia-Pacific Symposium on
Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere, Environment, and Space, Sendai, Japan, 9–12 October 2000.
4. Best, F.A., H.E. Revercomb, G.E. Bingham, R.O. Knuteson, D.C. Tobin, D.D. LaPorte, and W.L. Smith: “Calibration of
the Geostationary Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS)”, Proceedings of the SPIE, Remote Sensing of the
Atmosphere, Environment, and Space Symposium, 9 October 2000, Sendai, Japan.
5. Knuteson R.O., F.A. Best, G.E. Bingham, J.D. Elwell, H.E. Revercomb, D.C. Tobin, D.K. Scott, W.L. Smith: “On-orbit
Calibration of the Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS)”, Proceedings of the SPIE, Fourth
International Asia-Pacific Environmental Remote Sensing Symposium, 8 November 2004, Honolulu, Hawaii.
6. Best, F.A., H.E. Revercomb, R.O. Knuteson, D.C. Tobin, S.D. Ellington, M.W. Werner, D.P. Adler, R.K. Garcia, J.K.
Taylor, N.N. Ciganovich, W.L. Smith, G.E. Bingham, J.D. Elwell, D.K. Scott: “The Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier
Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS) On-Board Blackbody Calibration System”, Proceedings of the SPIE, Fourth
International Asia-Pacific Environmental Remote Sensing Symposium, 8 November 2004, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2005, pp
77-87.
7. Elwell, J.D., G.W. Cantwell, D.K Scott, R.W. Esplin, G.B. Hansen, S.M. Jensen, M.D. Jensen, S.B. Brown, L.J. Zollinger,
A.V. Thurgood, M.P. Esplin, R.J. Huppi, G.E. Bingham, H.E. Revercomb, F.A. Best, D.C. Tobin, J.K. Taylor, R.O.
Knuteson, W.L. Smith, R.A. Reisse, and R. Hooker (2006), “A Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer
(GIFTS for hyperspectral atmospheric remote sensing: instrument overview and preliminary performance results”,
Proceedings SPIE, 6297, in press.
8. Elwell, J.D., D.K. Scott, H.E. Revercomb, F.A. Best, R.O. Knuteson, “An Overview of Ground and On-orbit Infrared
Characterization and Calibration of the Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS)”,
Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Characterization and Radiometric Calibration for Remote Sensing, September 15
to 18, 2003, Utah State University, Space Dynamics Laboratory, Logan, Utah.
9. Revercomb, H.E., F.A. Best, D.C. Tobin, R.O. Knuteson, R.K. Garcia, D.D. LaPorte, G.E. Bingham, and W.L. Smith:
“On-orbit calibration of the Geostationary Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS)”, Proceedings of the 2002
Conference on Characterization and Radiometric Calibration for Remote Sensing, April 29 to May 2, 2002, Utah State
University, Space Dynamics Laboratory, Logan, Utah.
10. Goody, R. and R. Haskins: “Calibration of Radiances from Space” J. Climate, 11, 754–758, 1998.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-9
11. Revercomb, H.E., H. Buijs, H.B. Howell, D.D. LaPorte, W.L. Smith, and L.A. Sromovsky: “Radiometric Calibration of IR
Fourier Transform Spectrometers, Solution to a Problem with the High Resolution Interferometer Sounder” Appl. Opt., 27,
3210–3218, 1988.
12. Bingham, G.E., D.K. Zhou, B.Y. Bartschi, G.P. Anderson, D.R. Smith, J.H. Chetwynd, and R.M. Nadile: “Cryogenic
Infrared Radiance Instrumentation for Shuttle (CIRRIS 1A) Earth limb spectral measurements, calibration, and
atmospheric O3, HNO3, CFC-12, and CFC-11 profile retrieval” J. Geophys. Res., 102, D3, 3547–3558, 1997.
13. Knuteson, R. O., H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. N. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. D. Ellington, W. F.
Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, D. C. Tobin, 2004: "Atmospheric Emitted Radiance
Interferometer, Part I: Instrument Design; and Part II: Instrument Performance", Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Technology, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp.1763-1789.
14. Minnett, P.J., R.O. Knuteson, F.A. Best, B.J. Osborne, J.A. Hanafin, and O.B. Brown: “The Marine-Atmospheric Emitted
Radiance Interferometer (M-AERI), a high-accuracy, sea-going infrared spectroradiometer” In: Journal of Atmospheric
and Oceanic Technology, vol 18, 2001, 994-1013.
15. Best, F.A., H.E. Revercomb, R.O. Knuteson, D.C. Tobin, R.G. Dedecker, T.P. Dirkx, M.P. Mulligan, N.N. Ciganovich,
and Te, Y.: “Traceability of Absolute Radiometric Calibration for the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer
(AERI)” In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Characterization and Radiometric Calibration for Remote Sensing,
September 15 to 18, 2003, Utah State University, Space Dynamics Laboratory, Logan, Utah.
16. Revercomb, H.E., et al.: “Scanning HIS Aircraft Instrument Calibration and AIRS Validation” In: Proceedings of the Year
2003 Conference on Characterization and Radiometric Calibration for Remote Sensing, September 15 to 18, 2003, Utah
State University, Space Dynamics Laboratory, Logan, Utah.
17. Revercomb, H.E., et al.: “Applications of high spectral resolution FTIR observations demonstrated by the radiometrically
accurate ground-based AERI and the Scanning HIS aircraft instruments”, Proceedings of the SPIE 3rd International AsiaPacific Environmental Remote Sensing Symposium 2002, Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere, Ocean, Environment, and
Space, Hangzhou, China, 23-27 October 2002, SPIE, The International Society for Optical Engineering, Bellingham, WA,
2002.
18. Prokhorov, A.V.: “Monte Carlo Method in Optical Radiometry” Metrologia, Vol 35, No. 4, pp. 465-471, 1998.
19. Persky, M.J.: “Review of black surfaces for space-borne infrared systems” Rev. Sci. Instrum., Vol 70, No. 5, pp 21932217, 1999.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6405 64050I-10