Biomass is a spaceborn polarimetric P-band (435 MHz) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) in a dawn-dusk low Earth orbit. Its principal objective is to measure biomass content and change in all the Earth's forests. The ionosphere introduces Faraday rotation on every pulse emitted by low-frequency SAR and scintillations when the pulse traverses a region of plasma irregularities, consequently impacting the quality of the imaging. Some of these effects are due to Total Electron Content (TEC) and its gradients along the propagation path. Therefore, an accurate assessment of the ionospheric morphology and dynamics is necessary to properly understand the impact on image quality, especially in the equatorial and tropical regions. To this scope, we have conducted an in-depth investigation of the significant noise budget introduced by the two crests of the Equatorial Ionospheric Anomaly (EIA) over Brazil and South-East Asia. The work is characterized by a novel approach to conceive a SAR-oriented ionospheric assessment, aimed at detecting and identifying spatial and temporal TEC gradients, including scintillation effects and Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances, by means of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) ground-based monitoring stations. The novelty of this approach resides in the customization of the information about the impact of the ionosphere on SAR imaging as derived by local dense networks of ground instruments operating during the passes of Biomass spacecraft. The results identify the EIA crests as the regions hosting the bulk of irregularities potentially causing degradation on SAR imaging. Interesting insights about the local characteristics of low-latitudes ionosphere are also highlighted.

No abstract

Abstract-The Democratic People Republic of Korea announced two underground nuclear tests carried out in their territory respectively on October 9th, May 25th, 2009. The scarce information on the precise location and the size of those explosions has stimulated various kinds of studies, mostly based on seismological observations, by several national agencies concerned with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty verification. We analysed the available seismological data collected through a global high-quality network for the two tests. After picking up the arrival times at the various stations, a standard location program has been applied to the observed data. If we use all the available data for each single event, due to the different magnitude and different number of available stations, the locations appear quite different. On the contrary, if we use only the common stations, they happen to be only few km apart from each other and within their respective error ellipses. A more accurate relative location has been carried out by the application of algorithms such as double difference joint hypocenter determination (DDJHD) and waveform alignment. The epicentral distance between the two events obtained by these methods is 2 km, with the 2006 event shifted to the ESE with respect to that of 2009. We then used a dataset of VHR TerraSAR-X satellite images to detect possible surface effects of the underground tests. This is the first ever case where these highly performing SAR data have been used to such aim. We applied InSAR processing technique to fully exploit the capabilities of SAR data to measure very short displacements over large areas. Two interferograms have been computed, one co-event and one post-event, to remove possible residual topographic signals. A clear displacement pattern has been highlighted over a mountainous area within the investigated region, measuring a maximum displacement of about 45 mm overall the relief. Hypothesizing that the 2009 nuclear test had been carried out close to the area where the displacement has been observed through the DInSAR technique, its relation with the epicenter location obtained through seismological processing has been discussed as a possible alternative hypothesis with respect to the preferred solutions reported by the nuclear explosion database (NEDB). The distance of about 10 km between the two places can be considered acceptable in light of the possible systematic location shifts commonly observed in the seismological practice over a global scale. The difference between the m b magnitudes of the two tests could reflect differences in geological conditions of the two test sites, even if the yield of the two explosions had been the same.

No abstract

No abstract