Full text: Mapping surface structure and topography by airborne and spaceborne lasers

   
9-11 Nov. 1999 
]V Adt + e. = 
19-Fe.)4 (9) 
wcosp+e,)+qs 
o and q. Rearranging eq. 
os = 
» t qidRsin 9 (9.1) 
];dRsin 0 cos 9 * q4 
n the time error correction 
c correction, both have the 
r' which means they are 
e q;. This should not be 
change in elevation due to 
rtant observation is that a 
orbed by the translation 
ction since they represent 
. (nvolving dR and the 
that the correction for the 
are equivalent, thus dz is 
1 leads to the the following 
ly + dR + qRsing + 
'S( COS Q t que, * qoe, t €; 
volves the Taylor series 
cos (sin 9 
? following form: 
9) + 
SQ)tqi- (9.3) 
p T He, + 92° y + €, 
s follows. The terms (in 
equation is the difference 
Z;-R) and the computed 
2Y+43). The difference is 
ers on the right hand side 
the distance between the 
26, + €, ). This model is 
- (G,caP !) (10) 
   
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Hemote Sensing, Vol. 32, Part 3W14, La Jolla, CA, 9-11 Nov. 1999 
solved by 
AEP YY An A BP BI qoi 
To analyze the system we take the observation equation for the 
first iteration. Here the approximations for @ andg will be a, 
=@,=0. Thus the form will be: 
(Zo - R) - (1X o + 42ŸY0 + 93) = qydx + qady + dR + 
00 00 (11) 
I + Ge, s qd2€ y + €; 
We ignore the multiple error components and augment them all 
into a single component, rewriting equation (11) in matrix 
notation of the following form: 
dz 90.023 1 qf. gk 
= oes "Tamil (12) 
dz, qd1 492 1 quR, q2R,, © €n 
Equation (12) allows some important observations concerning 
the recovery of the calibration parameters. Firstly, it can be 
seen that the parameters are independent of the satellite 
position at the ranging time (i.e. Xo or Yo are not part of any 
coefficient). Secondly, flat surfaces or a surface tilted only in 
one direction (i.e. either q; or q» equal to 0) cannot recover 
some of the parameters (since the relevant columns turns to 0). 
More important, analyzing the linear dependency between 
parameters shows that the first three columns are linearly 
dependent (different by a constant), columns 4 and 5 are 
linearly dependent as well. The consequence is that a single 
surface is insufficient to recover all of the parameters 
regardless of the number of observations, and at most two 
parameters can be resolved’. In order to recover all parameters 
or even part of them (such as the rotation parameters and the 
ranging bias) at least two surfaces will be required. 
Analyzing the relations between columns 1, 2 and 4, 5 shows 
that the difference between the coefficients is the additional 
range component in column 4 and 5. Small relief variation (for 
example due to small slope angle) will therefore result in high 
correlation between the two pairs of columns. High correlation 
indicates that the parameters in question have a very similar 
effect on the system and therefore it is difficult to resolve the 
actual effect of each of them separately when some of them are 
involved. For calibrating spaceborne laser altimeters, where the 
flying altitude is high (for example 600,000 m for the GLAS 
satellite), reasonable relief variations will be too small to have 
any significant effect, therefore the effect of dx, dy, will be 
very similar to the one of q, ®. Experiments with different 
  
! Here we assume that calibration using data from a single orbit. It has 
been proposed to use ascending and descending orbits over the same 
location, so that a single surface will be sufficient. This can be modeled 
also as combination of two surfaces, but the more important question is 
whether the biased do not change through time. 
surface configurations have indeed shown that the correlation 
approaches 1 for the satellites flying: altitude and remains high 
even for lower altitude. The correlation matrix presented in 
table 1 is an example for the correlation for a flying altitude of 
600,000 [m] 
1.00000 0.85234 0.75224 -0.999784 0.85667 
-0.85234 1.00000 0.97063 0.85940 -0.999869 
-0.75224 0.97063 1.00000 0.75974 -0.970570 
-0.99978 0.85940 0.75974 1.00000 -0.86374 
0.85667 -0.99986 -0.97057 . -0.863747 1.00000 
Table 1. The correlation matrix between the 5 parameters for 
600,000[m] orbital altitude 
For three parameters only (two rotations and range bias) the 
correlation for the same surface configuration was reduced 
significantlly. Table 2 presents the correlation matrix between 
these parameters for an orbital altitude of 600,000 [m] 
1.00000 -0.519158 -0.390343 
-0.519158 1.00000 -0.426124 
-0.390343 -0.426124 1.00000 
Table 2. The correlation matrix between the first 3 parameters 
for 600,000] m] orbital altitude 
4. OPTIMAL SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS FOR 
RECOVERING THE GLAS CALIBRATION 
PARAMETERS 
We now examine surface characteristics that provide a robust 
solution for the calibration parameters. It is clear that different 
configurations provide solutions with different robustness 
measures, for example set of surfaces with small deviation 
from an horizontal plane are expected to produce weak solution 
than other configurations. We analyze the robustness of the 
solution by three criteria, the correlation matrix, the variances 
of the estimated parameters and the condition number. The 
properties of the correlation matrix were discussed above, high 
correlation implies strong relation between parameters and less 
confidence in the obtained values. The variance is a general 
measure for the goodness of the estimation. The condition 
number, defined as the ratio between the largest and the 
smallest eigenvalue is an indication for the significance of the 
parameters. As the ratio approaches 1 all parameters have 
similar significance; as it approaches oo, the system of 
equations is rank deficient (singular). In searching for a good 
set of surfaces we are looking into the number of surfaces 
required and their trend. An optimal solution will have a 
minimal set of surfaces and reasonable slopes, the overall size 
of the configuration site is also an issue to be addressed. To test 
configurations we simulated a flight path over a set of surfaces 
while introducing biases to the modeled parameters. In 
addition, to assess the robustness of the solution and its 
convergence to the correct values we also introduced random 
“ noise to some of the parameters. 
   
  
   
    
  
    
   
      
    
      
    
     
    
    
     
    
     
   
    
  
    
   
   
   
    
    
     
  
     
   
   
   
    
     
     
   
    
     
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
	        
Waiting...

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.