4 Final Report - Emits - ESA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 Final Report Column decoder 4 outputs 4 outputs Column readout circuit 4 stitched 1k x 1k arrays 15 µm pixel pitch Column readout circuit 4 outputs 4 outputs Column decoder Figure 4.3-9: Architecture for the MWIR CMOS hybrid detector The 2k x 2k array with 15 µm pitch consists in 4 independent 1000x1000 pixels sub-arrays. Each subblock is read out via 4 video outputs with a 10 Mpixels/s output rate, so the read out period is 25 ms, much larger than the max. integration time (2.5 msec for Marine application). The operating temperature of the detector is dictated by the level of dark current, which can reduce the useful dynamic range and significantly increase the detection noise. A temperature of 130K is a typical choice for a 3.7 µm MWIR band. 4.3.3.4 TIR focal plane As for MWIR, the two candidate technologies are TIR HgCdTe and AlGaAs/GaAs QWIP. From a qualitative point of view, the trade-off between both materials is identical: better sensitivity for HgCdTe and better yield / uniformity (spatial and spectral) / temporal stability / cosmetics for QWIP. The situation is however worse for TIR HgCdTe as its metallurgy complexity is strongly increasing with cutoff wavelength. A 25 µm pixel pitch is considered as the smallest achievable pixel pitch. The targeted format of 0.8k x 0.8k pixels has a 28 mm diagonal, larger than the HgCdTe state of the art. The development of the GIFTS array made by BAe in the US has shown that, despite important technological and financial efforts, it looks hard to produce with acceptable operability a 20 mm diagonal HgCdTe 2D array with very long cut-off wavelength. On the other hand, 640x480 pixels QWIP arrays with 25 µm pitch are currently produced by few manufacturers. The HgCdTe problem is well known by ESA detection experts, particularly in the framework of MTG studies, justifying the two ways approach proposed by the Agency: • Improve the weaknesses of HgCdTe, via technological development. This is the object of the running contract "initial design of thermal infrared detector array for MTG" • Improve performances of alternative ways. This is the object of the contract "Enhanced QWIP/Sb-superlattice Array Detector". About ROIC, the 800x800 pixels format with 25 µm pitch avoids the need for stitching. An alternative to quantum detectors that could be figured for Fire Monitoring applications (which have much relaxed noise requirements) is the emerging microbolometer technology. Page 4-36 Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-002 Issue: 2 Astrium GmbH Date: 13.05.2009
4 Final Report Microbolometers measure changes of electrical resistances with the help of pulsed currents. The major advantages are the possibility to operate at room temperature and the monolithic silicon structure which allows cheap production. Microbolometers are sensitive between 7 and 14 µm, but the responsivity is much lower than for quantum detectors. Microbolometers are not retained in the baseline for Fire Monitoring because the performances and the maturity level for GEO applications needs to be consolidated. The TIR detector architecture is similar to the MWIR one, but simpler thanks to the reduced number of pixels: two 400x800 pixels sub-arrays read out via 2 10 Mpixels/s video outputs, so the read out period is 16 ms, much larger than the max. integration time (
Page 1: Geo-Oculus: A Mission for Real-Time
Page 7: DL Final Distribution List Report Q
Page 11 and 12: TOC Final Table of Content Report D
Page 13 and 14: 1 Final Report 1 Introduction 1.1 S
Page 15: 1 Final Report [RD 7] Candidate Mis
Page 18 and 19: 2 Final Report capability of existi
Page 20 and 21: 2 Final Report Figure 2.3-1: Flood
Page 22 and 23: 2 Final Report Figure 2.3-3: Algal
Page 24 and 25: 2 Final Report Figure 2.3-6: Chloro
Page 26 and 27: 2 Final Report Erosion / Sediment T
Page 28 and 29: 3 Final Report 3 System Requirement
Page 30 and 31: 3 Final Report Furthermore, the mis
Page 32 and 33: 3 Final Report better than 0.5 SSD
Page 34 and 35: 3 Final Report • Image post integ
Page 36 and 37: 3 Final Report Table 3.3-1: Baselin
Page 38 and 39: 3 Final Report Manoeuvre Times and
Page 40 and 41: 3 Final Report Cloud Amount [%] Num
Page 42 and 43: 3 Final Report cloud scenes where t
Page 44 and 45: 4 Final Report Alternative solution
Page 46 and 47: 4 Final Report The achieved ground
Page 48 and 49: 4 Final Report board image processi
Page 50 and 51: 4 Final Report 4.3.3.2 UV-VNIR foca
Page 54 and 55: 4 Final Report 4.3.3.5 Mechanical a
Page 56 and 57: 4 Final Report 4.3.3.7 Electrical a
Page 58 and 59: 4 Final Report 4.3.4 PLM budgets Th
Page 60 and 61: 4 Final Report 4.4.2 Microvibration
Page 62 and 63: 4 Final Report Figure 4.4-2: Struct
Page 64 and 65: 4 Final 4.5 Satellite Report 4.5.1
Page 66 and 67: 4 Final Report Star Tracker Figure
Page 68 and 69: 4 Final Report (Spacecraft Computer
Page 70 and 71: 4 Final Report This is based on a w
Page 72 and 73: 4 Final Report Reception of the ins
Page 74 and 75: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-2: Charact
Page 76 and 77: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-4: Compari
Page 78 and 79: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-5: EPS fue
Page 80 and 81: 4 Final Report manoeuvre. It also h
Page 82 and 83: 4 Final Report Figure 4.5-10: Basel
Page 84 and 85: 4 Final Report The CPS considered f
Page 86 and 87: 4 Final Report PPU B* FU XST Page 4
Page 88 and 89: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-17. EP mas
Page 90 and 91: 4 Final Report The primary structur
Page 92 and 93: 4 Final Report Direction MTG Scaled
Page 94 and 95: 4 Final Report 4.6.1.1 High Level F
Page 96 and 97: 4 Final Report shorter. As a conseq
Page 98 and 99: 4 Final Report 4.6.2.4 Cloud Cover
Page 100 and 101: 4 Final Report management functions
Page 102 and 103:
4 Final Report 4.6.2.8 Ground Stati
Page 104 and 105:
5 Final Report based on EUMETSAT im
Page 107 and 108:
A Final Report Annex A Abbreviation
Page 109 and 110:
A Final Report ICU Instrument Contr
Page 111:
A Final Report Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-
show all

4 Final Report - Emits - ESA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?