Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

The Optical Design of the Carbon Investigation(Carbon-I) Imaging Spectrometer

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The proposed Carbon-I optical design satisfies all five imaging-spectrometer performance requirements with margin, the paper argues, while sampling greenhouse-gas spectra at 0.7 nm per pixel.

desk verdict A credible first-pass proposal-phase optical design for Carbon-I; the main unresolved link is the thermal-elastic error budget, which rests on an acknowledged scaling factor pending FEM analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22545 v1 pith:3FAZEFPK submitted 2025-05-28 physics.optics astro-ph.IM

Christine L. Bradley , Rami W. Wehbe , Matthew Smith , Sharmila Padmanabhan , Valerie Scott , David R. Thompson , Daniel W. Wilson , Pantazis Mouroulis
show 2 more authors
Robert O. Green Christian Frankenberg
This is my paper
classification physics.opticsastro-ph.IM
keywords imagingspectrometerDyson-inspiredfreeformthree-mirroranastigmatgreenhousegasesmethanecarbondioxidespectralresponsefunctionopticalthroughput
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a proposed spaceborne imaging spectrometer for greenhouse-gas monitoring can meet its five optical performance requirements with margin. The design pairs a freeform three-mirror telescope with an F/2.2 Dyson-inspired spectrometer to sample the 2040-2380 nm band at 0.7 nm per pixel, roughly ten times finer than an earlier Dyson-based instrument. The authors build error budgets for fabrication, alignment, thermal, and gravity-release errors and report that the roll-up meets the along-track, spectral, and cross-track response-function requirements, plus smile and keystone, simultaneously. They also calculate an optical throughput of 0.65-0.69 against a 0.60 requirement. If the design holds, a single compact instrument could map methane and carbon dioxide at 400 m globally and 35 m in targeted regions, filling a coverage gap in cloudy tropical areas.

What carries the argument

The carrying element is a freeform three-mirror anastigmat telescope that feeds an F/2.2 Dyson-inspired imaging spectrometer: a compact unit-magnification spectrometer of the Dyson type, in which light double-passes a fused-silica lens and returns from a concave triangular-blazed grating. The telescope is largely inherited from an existing freeform design, giving uniform small spots across the field, while the spectrometer's even-asphere Dyson lens, slit decenter, and grating groove spacing set the 0.7 nm spectral sampling. The design deliberately makes spots thin in the cross-track direction, because the cross-track response function is the metric most sensitive to fabrication, alignment, and thermal errors. Error budgets are then rolled up with Monte-Carlo tolerance runs and simplified coefficient-of-thermal-expansion thermal models scaled by a model uncertainty factor, showing margin on all five response and uniformity metrics.

What would settle it

Run a full structural-thermal-optical finite-element analysis, or a thermal-vacuum test on an engineering model, applying the assumed temperature ranges and gravity release; if the measured cross-track response function exceeds 2.5 pixels or the spectral response function exceeds 2.5 nm at any field point after accounting for fabrication tolerances, the paper's central claim would fail. Alternatively, if a flight-like grating's efficiency falls below the modeled value across part of the band, the optical throughput could drop below the 0.60 requirement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central result is that the Carbon-I point design satisfies all five optical performance requirements with ample margin: along-track response function at or below 3.0 pixels, spectral response function at or below 2.5 nm, cross-track response function at or below 2.5 pixels, smile at or below 15% of a pixel, and keystone at or below 15% of a pixel. After Monte-Carlo tolerancing and a roll-up of in-flight thermal and gravity errors, the current best estimates retain margins of at least 53% across the five metrics, and the statistical analysis shows all evaluated cases meet the requirements at once. The design also yields an optical throughput of 0.65-0.69 including first test-grating data, above the 0.60 requirement. The result comes from choosing a freeform telescope that delivers uniform diffraction-limited spots and a spectrometer optimized to keep the cross-track response small, since that metric collects errors from both telescope and spectrometer.

Load-bearing premise

The margins hold only if the instrument's in-flight thermal environment stays within the assumed ranges—telescope bulk soak of ±15 K, gradients of 2 K or less, mirror temperature lag of ±0.5 K, spectrometer soak of ±2 K, and spectrometer gradient below 3 K—because those values come from simplified thermal models scaled by a factor of two rather than from a full structural-thermal-optical model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single instrument could provide 0.7 nm spectral sampling over 2040-2380 nm, enough to resolve the fine CH4 and CO2 absorption features that coarser 7-10 nm samplers blur.
  • Global-mode 400 m ground sampling and target-mode 35 m sampling over a 100 km swath would allow monthly global flux maps and localized emission-source identification.
  • At the modeled throughput of 0.65-0.69, the instrument would exceed the 0.60 optical throughput requirement even with the first test grating's fabrication errors included.
  • The margins on all five optical performance requirements are at least 53% in current best estimates, with a minimum of 33% unallocated margin reserved in each budget.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, a natural next test is to measure the efficiency and scatter of a flight-like grating; the reported first test grating already suggests the modeling approach is conservative, so a second run that matches the predicted grating efficiency would strengthen the throughput claim.
  • Beyond the paper, the same telescope-plus-Dyson architecture could be retuned to other narrow shortwave-infrared bands by swapping the grating blaze angle and bandpass filter, because the triangular blazed grating is optimized for a single center wavelength.
  • Beyond the paper, if the thermal margins hold, the reported cross-track response margin suggests the design has room for slightly looser alignment tolerances or a somewhat different detector format, which would simplify fabrication and reduce cost.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the proposed optical design of the Carbon-I imaging spectrometer, a spaceborne instrument for greenhouse gas monitoring in the 2040-2380 nm range. The design couples a freeform three-mirror anastigmat telescope to an F/2.2 Dyson-inspired spectrometer with 0.7 nm spectral sampling. The authors evaluate the design against five optical performance requirements (ARF, SRF, CRF, smile, keystone) using ray-tracing simulations, Monte Carlo tolerance analysis, and first-pass error budgets that include fabrication, alignment, OGSE, thermal, and gravity-release errors. They also estimate optical throughput of 0.65-0.69 against a 0.60 requirement, using coating predictions, vendor material data, and efficiency of a first test grating. The central claim is that the point design meets all optical performance requirements with margin after accounting for as-built and in-flight errors.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper demonstrates a feasible optical architecture for a mission that requires 10x finer spectral sampling than the operating EMIT instrument while maintaining high throughput and good response-function uniformity. The work benefits from strong JPL heritage and provides useful engineering detail: the error-budget structure with separate allocations and CBEs for all five metrics, the Monte Carlo tolerance roll-ups, the explicit treatment of compensators, and the inclusion of measured test-grating efficiency in the throughput estimate are all commendable. The main limitation is that the design is simulation-only and no optical prescription or design file is provided, so the claimed performance cannot be independently reproduced. The conclusions also depend on an unvalidated thermal-model uncertainty factor, which is the least secure link in the 'meets with ample margin' statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Figure 8] The in-flight error budget relies on simplified CTE-only Zemax thermal models scaled by a model uncertainty factor (MUF) of 2, with the text stating that 'The MUF is conservative as these are simplified thermal models that will later be replaced by proper Structural (FEM) Element Model analysis.' This is load-bearing because the CRF in-flight allocation is only 0.55 sampling intervals with a CBE of 0.34 and the smallest margin (37%) among the five requirements. A factor-of-2 scaling of an unvalidated model is not by itself a demonstrated bound on the real structural-thermal-optical response of the aluminum bench, aluminum mirrors, fused-silica Dyson lens, and N-BK7 grating. Please provide either a system-level STOP FEM result for the listed thermal environments, or a sensitivity analysis showing how the CRF and SRF margins vary when the assumed thermal excursions and the MUF are varied over a plausible range, before claiming the design meets requirements with ample margin.
  2. [Sections 4-6] The paper provides no optical prescription: no radii, conic or aspheric coefficients, grating groove density, component spacings, or surface data are given for the telescope or the Dyson spectrometer. The end-to-end performance plots (Figures 6 and 7) and the error budgets (Figures 8 and 9) are therefore not reproducible from the manuscript. I request a table of key prescription parameters or a link to a design file (e.g., a Zemax or CODE V prescription) so that the central claim can be independently checked.
  3. [Section 9 vs. Section 3 and Section 7] There is a load-bearing inconsistency in the telescope mirror coating. Section 3 states the mirrors are 'protected gold coated,' and Section 7 computes telescope transmittance using protected gold reflectance of approximately 0.982 per mirror, contributing to the 0.65-0.69 throughput result. The Conclusions, however, state that 'Telescope mirrors are baselined to be protected aluminum.' If aluminum mirrors are actually intended, the throughput estimate would need to be redone and might not meet the 0.60 requirement. Please correct the conclusion or revise the throughput calculation accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 9] The abstract states a finer GSD of 35 m in target mode, while the Conclusions state the design achieves '30 m ground sampling distance'; Table 1 also lists a GSD requirement of ≤50 m. Please make these values consistent.
  2. [Section 7, Figure 11 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'The phones travel right to left' should read 'The photons travel right to left.'
  3. [Section 6] The model uncertainty factor (MUF) is introduced for thermal models but not defined quantitatively. Please state how the value of 2 was selected and whether the same factor is intended for all thermal environments, including gravity release.
  4. [Figure 8] The high-level error budget table is dense and would benefit from a written explanation of how the 'Alloc.' and 'CBE' values are read for each requirement, especially because the margin formulas in Equations (1)-(3) exclude slit-width or pixel-width contributions. Currently only a brief note accompanies the figure.
  5. [Section 2] The margin definitions in Equations (1)-(3) are described verbally; a short worked example for one requirement (e.g., CRF with Req=2.5, CBE=1.71) would clarify how the 53% margin quoted in Section 6 is obtained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Carbon-I's performance claims are computed from the optical prescription against externally imposed requirements, with the acknowledged MUF=2 thermal-model factor noted as a limitation rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper is an engineering design study, not a derivation. The five optical performance requirements (ARF <= 3.0 pixels, SRF <= 2.5 nm, CRF <= 2.5 pixels, smile <= 15%, keystone <= 15%) are externally imposed by science goals (Table 2), and the design is optimized to meet them. The end-to-end ARF/SRF/CRF, smile, and keystone values in Figures 6 and 7 are computed by ray tracing the actual prescription; they are not set equal to the requirements. The margin formulas (Eqs. 1-3) explicitly exclude the slit/pixel convolution widths, so the margin is not created by redefining the requirement to match the current best estimate. The error budget (Section 6) reports allocations, CBEs, and margins separately, with Monte Carlo and RSS roll-ups; the CBE values are simulation outputs, not fitted constants. The in-flight thermal terms are scaled by a stated model uncertainty factor of 2, with the text noting the simplified CTE models 'will later be replaced by proper Structural (FEM) Element Model analysis' -- this is an acknowledged limitation that affects confidence in the margin, but it is not a circular step because the claim is not defined in terms of that assumption, and the assumption is not made true by the conclusion. Self-citations to EMIT, SBG VSWIR, and Mouroulis and Green provide context, heritage, and methods; the load-bearing numerical results are produced in this paper from the optical prescription, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. No step reduces, by construction, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The design's claimed margins rest on several engineering assumptions: simplified thermal models with arbitrary MUF, tolerance distributions, contamination heritage from EMIT, and build-to-print reuse of the SBG telescope. These are not fitted constants in a derivation but they are load-bearing assumptions whose realism determines whether the design truly meets requirements.

free parameters (4)
  • Model uncertainty factor (MUF) for thermal models = 2
    Applied to all simplified thermal error budget entries (Section 6). The value 2 is chosen by the authors as conservative, but it is not derived from data or FEM analysis; the central margin claim depends on it.
  • End-of-life contamination throughput loss = 2%
    Taken from EMIT mission simulations and assumed similar for Carbon-I (Section 7). This factor directly lowers the throughput estimate; if contamination is higher, the 0.6 requirement could be missed.
  • AR coating efficiency derating = 0.3% per surface
    The AR coating reflectance is derated by 0.3% based on a 95th percentile fabrication uncertainty (Section 7). This is an assumed statistical value.
  • Telescope mirror surface roughness = 40 Angstroms rms
    Baselined for Carbon-I, relaxed from EMIT's 20 Angstroms rms. Used in total integrated scatter estimate (0.063% per mirror); if actual roughness is higher, extended field stray light increases.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incoherent approximation is valid for computing ARF, SRF, and CRF response functions.
    Section 2 states the approximations are used to simplify computations and that previous imaging spectrometer experience shows good agreement with as-built hardware.
  • domain assumption PCGrate-SX software accurately predicts grating efficiencies including absorption and Wood's anomalies.
    Section 7 relies on PCGrate-SX full-wave simulations for the grating throughput, citing two decades of use and agreement with measured efficiencies.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified CTE-based thermal models with MUF=2 bound the real in-flight thermal environment.
    Section 6 uses CTE scaling of optical prescriptions with ± 15 K bulk soak, ≤ 2 K gradient, ± 0.5 K mirror lag, ± 2 K spectrometer soak, and < 3 K gradient, all multiplied by MUF=2 and with a caveat that FEM analysis will be needed later.
  • domain assumption The SBG VSWIR freeform telescope can be used nearly build-to-print for Carbon-I, with only coating and stray light modifications, without degrading the optical performance at 2040-2380 nm.
    Section 3 states the telescope is taken from SBG VSWIR and is largely build-to-print, with protected gold coatings and relaxed roughness; no new performance simulation of the modified telescope is presented.
  • domain assumption Tolerance distributions assumed in the Monte Carlo analyses are representative of as-built fabrication and alignment errors.
    Section 6 uses 2-sigma Monte Carlo results from assumed tolerance values (e.g., TM2 radius ± 0.25 mm, FPA clocking ± 0.0005 deg). The paper states these are in line with typical requirements but does not justify each value with vendor data.
  • domain assumption Stray light can be controlled to the levels assumed by baffle design and total integrated scatter estimates.
    Section 8 assumes the telescope is well baffled, uses Z306 paint, and that mirror scatter dominates extended field stray light with TIS 0.063% per mirror; no full stray light analysis is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Optical Design of the Carbon Investigation(Carbon-I) Imaging Spectrometer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FAZEFPK

@misc{pith2026250522545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Optical Design of the Carbon Investigation(Carbon-I) Imaging Spectrometer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FAZEFPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22545}
}
read the original abstract

The proposed Carbon Investigation (Carbon-I) Imaging Spectrometer is designed to measure variations of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. The instrument will survey the Earth from its own spacecraft at an altitude of approximately 610 km. It will use a coarse ground sampling distance (GSD) of <400 m in global mode for land and coastal monitoring and finer 35 m GSD in target mode to sample key regions. The identification and quantification of greenhouse gases require continuous spectral sampling over the 2040-2380 nm wavelength range with <1 nm spectral sampling. The proposed design builds upon Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) experience of spaceflight Dyson imaging spectrometers to achieve spectral sampling of 0.7 nm per pixel. This paper presents the proposed Carbon-I optical design comprised of a freeform three-mirror anastigmat telescope that couples to a F/2.2, highly uniform Dyson-inspired imaging spectrometer. The high uniformity and throughput enables Carbon-I to measure Earth's greenhouse gas concentrations with unprecedented precision and spatial sampling.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Assessing methane emissions from global space-borne observations,

    C. Frankenberg, J. F. Meirink, M. Van Weele, U. Platt, and T. Wagner, “Assessing methane emissions from global space-borne observations,”Science, vol. 308, no. 5724, pp. 1010–1014, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission,

    D. Crisp, R. M. Atlas, F. M. Breon, L. R. Brown, J. P. Burrows, P. Ciais, B. J. Connor, S. C. Doney, I. Y . Fung, D. J. Jacob, C. E. Miller, D. O’Brien, S. Pawson, J. T. Randerson, P. Rayner, R. J. Salawitch, S. P. Sander, B. Sen, G. L. Stephens, P. P. Tans, G. C. Toon, P. O. Wennberg, S. C. Wofsy, Y . L. Yung, Z. Kuang, B. Chu- dasama, G. Sprague, B. Wei...

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    SCIAMACHY: Mission objectives and measurement modes,

    H. Bovensmann, J. P. Burrows, M. Buchwitz, J. Frerick, S. No¨el, V . V . Rozanov, K. V . Chance, and A. P. Goede, “SCIAMACHY: Mission objectives and measurement modes,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences , vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 127–150, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Toward accurate CO2 and CH4 observations from GOSAT,

    A. Butz, S. Guerlet, O. Hasekamp, D. Schepers, A. Galli, I. Aben, C. Frankenberg, J. M. Hartmann, H. Tran, A. Kuze, G. Keppel-Aleks, G. Toon, D. Wunch, P. Wennberg, N. Deutscher, D. Griffith, R. MacAtangay, J. Messerschmidt, J. Notholt, and T. Warneke, “Toward accurate CO2 and CH4 observations from GOSAT,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 38, no. 14, pp...

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Update on GOSAT TANSO-FTS performance, operations, and data products after more than 6 years in space,

    A. Kuze, H. Suto, K. Shiomi, S. Kawakami, M. Tanaka, Y . Ueda, A. Deguchi, J. Yoshida, Y . Yamamoto, F. Kataoka, T. E. Taylor, and H. L. Buijs, “Update on GOSAT TANSO-FTS performance, operations, and data products after more than 6 years in space,” At- mospheric Measurement Techniques, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 2445–2461, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Methane retrieved from TROPOMI: Improvement of the data product and val- idation of the first 2 years of measurements,

    A. Lorente, T. Borsdorff, A. Butz, O. Hasekamp, J. Aan De Brugh, A. Schneider, L. Wu, F. Hase, R. Kivi, D. Wunch, D. F. Pollard, K. Shiomi, N. M. Deutscher, V . A. Velazco, C. M. Roehl, P. O. Wennberg, T. Warneke, and J. Landgraf, “Methane retrieved from TROPOMI: Improvement of the data product and val- idation of the first 2 years of measurements,” Atmo-...

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Quantifying methane emissions from the global scale down to point sources using satellite observations of atmospheric methane,

    D. J. Jacob, D. J. Varon, D. H. Cusworth, P. E. Dennison, C. Frankenberg, R. Gautam, L. Guanter, J. Kelley, J. McKeever, L. E. Ott, B. Poulter, Z. Qu, A. K. Thorpe, J. R. Worden, and R. M. Duren, “Quantifying methane emissions from the global scale down to point sources using satellite observations of atmospheric methane,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physic...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Data drought in the humid tropics: How to overcome the cloud barrier in greenhouse gas remote sensing,

    C. Frankenberg, Y . M. Bar-On, Y . Yin, P. Wennberg, D. J. Jacob, and A. M. Michalak, “Data drought in the humid tropics: How to overcome the cloud barrier in greenhouse gas remote sensing,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 51, no. 8, p. e2024GL108791, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    NASA’s Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investiga- tion,

    R. O. Green, N. M. Mahowald, R. N. Clark, B. L. Ehlmann, P. A. Ginoux, O. V . Kalashnikova, R. L. Miller, G. Okin, T. H. Painter, C. P ´erez Garc´ıa-Pando, V . J. Realmuto, G. A. Swayze, D. R. Thompson, E. Mid- 15 dleton, L. Guanter, E. Ben Dor, and B. R. Phillips, “NASA’s Ear...

    2018

  2. [10]

    The earth sur- face mineral dust source investigation: An earth sci- ence imaging spectroscopy mission,

    R. O. Green, N. Mahowald, C. Ung, D. R. Thomp- son, L. Bator, M. Bennet, M. Bernas, N. Blackway, C. Bradley, J. Cha, P. Clark, R. Clark, D. Cloud, E. Diaz, E. Ben Dor, R. Duren, M. Eastwood, B. L. Ehlmann, L. Fuentes, P. Ginoux, J. Gross, Y . He, O. Kalashnikova, W. Kert, D. K...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Optical design of the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) imaging spectrometer,

    C. L. Bradley, E. Thingvold, L. B. Moore, J. M. Haag, N. A. Raouf, P. Mouroulis, and R. O. Green, “Optical design of the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) imaging spectrometer,” in Imaging Spectrometry XXIV: Applications, Sensors, and Processing , E. J. Ie...

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    On-orbit calibration and performance of the emit imaging spectrometer,

    D. R. Thompson, R. O. Green, C. Bradley, P. G. Bro- drick, N. Mahowald, E. B. Dor, M. Bennett, M. Bernas, N. Carmon, K. D. Chadwick, R. N. Clark, R. W. Coleman, E. Cox, E. Diaz, M. L. Eastwood, R. Eckert, B. L. Ehlmann, P. Ginoux, M. G. Ageitos, K. Grant, L. Guanter, D. H. Pea...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric co2 and the orbiting carbon observatory (oco) experiment,

    C. E. Miller, L. R. Brown, R. A. Toth, D. C. Benner, and V . M. Devi, “Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric co2 and the orbiting carbon observatory (oco) experiment,”Comptes Rendus Physique, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 876–887, 2005, molecular spectrosco...

    2005

  6. [14]

    Preflight spec- tral calibration of the orbiting carbon observatory,

    J. O. Day, C. W. O’Dell, R. Pollock, C. J. Bruegge, D. Rider, D. Crisp, and C. E. Miller, “Preflight spec- tral calibration of the orbiting carbon observatory,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 2793–2801, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    The on- orbit performance of the orbiting carbon observatory-2 (oco-2) instrument and its radiometrically calibrated products,

    D. Crisp, H. R. Pollock, R. Rosenberg, L. Chapsky, R. A. M. Lee, F. A. Oyafuso, C. Frankenberg, C. W. O’Dell, C. J. Bruegge, G. B. Doran, A. Eldering, B. M. Fisher, D. Fu, M. R. Gunson, L. Mandrake, G. B. Osterman, F. M. Schwandner, K. Sun, T. E. Taylor, P. O. Wennberg, and D....

    2017

  8. [16]

    Preflight spec- tral calibration of the orbiting carbon observatory 2,

    R. A. M. Lee, C. W. O’Dell, D. Wunch, C. M. Roehl, G. B. Osterman, J.-F. Blavier, R. Rosenberg, L. Chap- sky, C. Frankenberg, S. L. Hunyadi-Lay, B. M. Fisher, D. M. Rider, D. Crisp, and R. Pollock, “Preflight spec- tral calibration of the orbiting carbon observatory 2,” IEEE T...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Inflight radiometric calibration and performance of the orbiting carbon observatory 3 for version 10 products,

    G. R. Keller, R. A. Rosenberg, G. D. Spiers, S. Yu, A. Merrelli, C. W. O’Dell, R. A. Lee, D. Crisp, A. Elder- ing, and A. Chatterjee, “Inflight radiometric calibration and performance of the orbiting carbon observatory 3 for version 10 products,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- scie...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Sur- face biology and geology (sbg) visible to short wave- length infrared (vswir) wide swath instrument concept,

    R. O. Green, A. Sen, J. C. Pearson, P. Mouroulis, S. Patel, P. Sullivan, T. Werne, M. Brenner, I. McKinley, E. Liggett, J. Rodriguez, M. Eastwood, S. T. Smith, E. Diaz, M. Bennett, R. Pollock, and M. Walch, “Sur- face biology and geology (sbg) visible to short wave- length inf...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Optical design study of surface biology and geology (SBG) visible to short wavelength infrared (VSWIR) wide swath imaging spectrometer,

    C. L. Bradley, J. Ferdosi, B. V . Gorp, E. Ek, E. Diaz, F. Maiwald, D. R. Thompson, R. O. Green, and P. Mouroulis, “Optical design study of surface biology and geology (SBG) visible to short wavelength infrared (VSWIR) wide swath imaging spectrometer,” in International Optical...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Review of high fidelity imaging spectrometer design for remote sensing,

    P. Mouroulis and R. O. Green, “Review of high fidelity imaging spectrometer design for remote sensing,” Optical Engineering , vol. 57, no. 4, p. 040901, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.57.4.040901

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Design of the Compact Wide Swath Imaging Spectrometer (CWIS),

    B. V . Gorp, P. Mouroulis, D. W. Wilson, and R. O. Green, “Design of the Compact Wide Swath Imaging Spectrometer (CWIS),” in Imaging Spectrometry XIX , P. Mouroulis and T. S. Pagano, Eds., vol. 9222, International Society for Optics and Photonics. SPIE, 2014, p. 92220C. [Onlin...

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Compact Wide swath Imaging Spectrometer (CWIS): alignment and laboratory calibration,

    B. V . Gorp, P. Mouroulis, D. W. Wilson, R. O. Green, J. I. Rodriguez, E. Liggett, and D. R. Thompson, “Compact Wide swath Imaging Spectrometer (CWIS): alignment and laboratory calibration,” in Imaging Spectrometry XXI , J. F. Silny and E. J. Ientilucci, Eds., vol. 9976, Inter...

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Snow and Water Imaging Spectrometer: mission and instrument concepts for earth-orbiting CubeSats,

    H. A. Bender, P. Mouroulis, H. M. Dierssen, T. H. Painter, D. R. Thompson, C. D. Smith, J. Gross, R. O. Green, J. M. Haag, B. E. V . Gorp, and E. Diaz, “Snow and Water Imaging Spectrometer: mission and instrument concepts for earth-orbiting CubeSats,” Journal of Applied Remote...

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Optical design of the Mapping Imaging Spectrometer for Europa (MISE),

    H. A. Bender, D. L. Blaney, P. Mouroulis, L. A. Moore, and B. E. V . Gorp, “Optical design of the Mapping Imaging Spectrometer for Europa (MISE),” in Imaging Spectrometry XXIII: 16 Applications, Sensors, and Processing , E. J. Ientilucci, Ed., vol. 11130, International Society...

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Preliminary alignment, characterization, and comparison of next generation carbon mapping imaging spectrometers,

    S. R. Zandbergen, L. Shaw, C. Klein, D. R. Thompson, R. O. Green, R. Duren, M. Gibson, H. Nazaryan, C. Smith, B. Cubanski, P. Giuliano, J. M. Haag, and C. Pritchett, “Preliminary alignment, characterization, and comparison of next generation carbon mapping imaging spectrometer...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Optomechanical design of a next generation carbon mapping hyperspectral imaging spectrometer,

    L. Shaw, S. R. Zandbergen, C. Klein, N. Kinkaid, R. Duren, D. Crumb, M. Gibson, E. Olds, C. Smith, P. Giuliano, and J. M. Haag, “Optomechanical design of a next generation carbon mapping hyperspectral imaging spectrometer,” in Imaging Spectrometry XXVI: Applications, Sensors, ...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Unit magnification optical system without seidel aberrations,

    J. Dyson, “Unit magnification optical system without seidel aberrations,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. , vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 713–716, Jul 1959. [Online]. Available: https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-49-7-713

    1959

  20. [28]

    Optical design for imaging spectroscopy,

    P. Z. Mouroulis and R. O. Green, “Optical design for imaging spectroscopy,” in Current Developments in Lens Design and Optical Engineering IV , P. Z. Mouroulis, W. J. Smith, and R. B. Johnson, Eds., vol. 5173, International Society for Optics and Photonics. SPIE, 2003, p. 5173...

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    Recent developments in tolerancing methods for imaging spectrometers,

    L. B. Moore, H. A. Bender, C. L. Bradley, J. M. Haag, S. Zandbergen, R. O. Green, and P. Mouroulis, “Recent developments in tolerancing methods for imaging spectrometers,” in Optical System Alignment, Tolerancing, and Verification XIII, J. Sasi ´an and R. N. Youngworth, Eds., ...

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Fused Quartz and Fused Silica for Optical Applications–Data and Properties,

    Heraus Conamic, “Fused Quartz and Fused Silica for Optical Applications–Data and Properties,” Heraus Conamic, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Transmission Calculator for Optical Applications,

    H. Covantics, “Transmission Calculator for Optical Applications,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.heraeus-conamic.com/tools- and-services/tools/transmission-calculator/optical- applications

    2024

  24. [32]

    Recent advances in blazed grating fabrication by electron-beam lithography,

    D. W. Wilson, P. D. Maker, R. E. Muller, P. Z. Mouroulis, and J. Backlund, “Recent advances in blazed grating fabrication by electron-beam lithography,” in Current Developments in Lens Design and Optical Engineering IV , P. Z. Mouroulis, W. J. Smith, and R. B. Johnson, Eds., v...

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    E. C. Fest, Stray Light Analysis and Control. Belling- ham, Washington: SPIE Press., 2013. BIOGRAPHY [ Christine L. Bradley received her B.S. and PhD degrees in Optical Science and Engineering from the University of Arizona, College of Optical Sciences. She is an Optical Engin...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.