AFOSR

Remote Sensing and Imaging

Physics
16 March 2011
Kent Miller
Program Manager
AFOSR/RSE
Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 88ABW-2011-0750
 2011 AFOSR Spring Review
2301F Portfolio Overview
NAME: Kent Miller

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PORTFOLIO:

Understand the physics that enables space situational awareness
Understand the propagation of electromagnetic radiation and the
formation of images

LIST SUB-AREAS IN PORTFOLIO:

1. Image Formation and Processing
2. EM Propagation and Imaging through Deep Optical Turbulence
3. Identification of Unresolved Space Objects
4. Predicting the Location of Space Objects
5. Student Programs: University NanoSats, Space & DE Scholars

2
 Scientific Challenges
1. Image Formation and Processing
– What new information sources give higher resolution
2. EM Propagation and Imaging through Deep Optical Turbulence
– What physics describes amplitude singularities (branch
points)
3. Identification of Unresolved Space Objects
– How to “fingerprint” a satellite we can’t image if we can’t
deconvolve the spectrum
4. Predicting the Location of Space Objects
– How to predict future location of satellite
– How to ID thousand of new objects when new sensors come
on line
5. Student Programs: University NanoSats, Space & DE Scholars
– How to attract the brightest students
3
 Transformational Opportunities
1. Image Formation and Processing
– More rapid, more accurate image reconstruction
2. EM Propagation and Imaging through Deep Optical Turbulence
– New models for EM propagation and turbulence with strong
amplitude scintillation
3. Identification of Unresolved Space Objects
– Breakthrough in spacecraft materials characterization
4. Predicting the Location of Space Objects
– Rapid orbit determination – transformational capability to deal
with 300,000 newly observed RSOs

4
 Other Organizations That
Fund Related Work
• 1. Image Formation and Processing
– NASA – space-to-ground imaging
– ARO, DHS, NSF – machine vision, target recognition
– NSF – Adaptive Optics for astronomy
– DARPA – Projects related to ground-based imaging of satellites
• 2. EM Propagation and Imaging through Deep Optical Turbulence
– Joint Lab Task with DARPA – funding of propagation through deep
turbulence
• 3. Identification of Unresolved Space Objects
– NASA – Asteroid Search
– AF unique in identifying satellites
• 4. Predicting the Location of Space Objects
– DARPA – funding of UCT identification
– NASA – Astrodynamics
– ESA – Developing new space surveillance capabilities
• 5. Student Programs: University NanoSats, Space & DE Scholars
– NSF – CubeSat Program with student involvement 5

– ESA – Student satellite programs

 Transitions from Recent
Projects
• Adaptive control of effects of turbulence and jitter on
airborne laser platforms – to JTO and AFRL
• Fast, accurate gravity field model, to AFSPC
• Holographic AO - Eliminates the computer required to
deform mirror to compensate wavefront distortions
• Laser Cooling – reduce need for bulky, noisy
cryocoolers – Transitioning to RV through an STTR
– Have reached 110K, expect 70K soon

6
From Surveillance to SSA

7
 The Physics of
Space Situational Awareness
• Complex problems – includes research from several
program managers as well as most AFRL directorates
• Requires cross-discipline research to turn Space
Surveillance, Astrodynamics, Space Weather,
Information Sciences, Electromagnetics, etc. into
Space Situational Awareness

Imaging and
Surveillance Situational Modeling

Environmental
Effects

8
1. Imaging

9
 Atmospheric Turbulence

AO compensation D/r0
Star = 10
Light from star
Atmosphere
AO
compensation
Telescope + post- D/r0
processing = 20

Star image
(Point Spread
Function)

No turbulence Turbulence Typical Imaging Conditions

at 0.5 m at AMOS

10
 Restoration of Data
Strong Atmospheric Turbulence
• Extend the range of conditions for acquisition of
high-fidelity imagery
• Important class of satellites that can only be observed
around noon local time
Pristine D/r0 = 5 D/r0 = 20 D/r0 = 100

8 arc sec

Simulations of the Hubble Space Telescope as it would appear from the 3.6 m AEOS telescope at a range of 700
km in 1 ms exposures at 0.9 m wavelength under a range of seeing conditions.

Target turbulence levels : 50 ≤ D/r0 ≤ 80

[ Daytime conditions at AMOS ]

Stuart Jefferies, University of Hawaii 11

James Nagy, Emory University
 Image Post Processing
1) Wave Front Sensor data available DWFS and Frozen Flow Model

D/r0=100
Restoration of daytime imagery
now feasible

2) No Wave Front Sensor data Compact MFBD (CMFBD)

MFBD

Data MFBD CMFBD

CMFBD

Stuart Jefferies, University of Hawaii

James Nagy, Emory University
AFOSR award F9550-09-1-0216 12
 Aperture Partitioning
Brandoch Calef, AFRL/RD
Imaging through atmospheric turbulence
•r0 small relative to D Telescope
aperture
•Aperture contains many atmospheric cells
•Baseline redundancy causes turbulence “noise” in the r0
D
bispectrum estimate.
Atmospheric
seeing cells
New approach:
•Partition the pupil into concentric annuli Camera 1
•Focus each region on a separate camera
Camera 2
•No photons discarded - critical for dim objects
•Reduces baseline redundancy noise, improves image Camera 3

Telescope pupil

Bispectrum SNR is improved Reconstructed image is improved

Full aperture Partitioned aperture Full aperture Partitioned aperture

high

low 13
 2. Imaging in Extreme Atmospheric
Seeing Conditions

Users are asking for more:

Daytime imaging Astronomy – good seeing, generally
favorable zenith angles, operations exclusively
Imaging un-illuminated at night
objects in infrared
Operations at very low
elevation angles
“Tactical time frames”
Control of laser beams
through turbulence

Military – possibly unfavorable seeing, zenith

angles, both day/night operations desired.

14
 Propagation and Imaging through
Deep Turbulence
• Tens of kilometers in moderate turbulence Isoplanatic
• Small isoplanatic angle Angle

• Branch points
• Atmospheric guiding
• Laser speckle spoofs WFS; Diffraction
reduces power Limit
Beacon Size

• Classical single beacon will not extend the

range beyond 50 km

Non-Kolmogorov Processes
• The Science Advisory Board (SAB)
challenged AFRL/RD to solve beam
control for horizontal paths gravity waves

Radiative Heating
Convection

15
 The Creation and Evolution
of Branch Points
Causality Results

Causality prevents the wave changing Branch points:

instantaneously across all space when • Created in pairs of
evolving from time to time opposite polarity
infinitesimally close
Branch point phase is given by together
• Creation pairs
evolve smoothly
with propagation BP creation pair

• Creation pairs have

Causality precludes branch points from the velocity of the
forming unless ... pairs of opposite polarity turbulent layer

• Novel approach in studying the new

regime yielded nice initial result
• Opened the door for many more results 16
Darryl Sanchez, ASALT Lab, AFRL/RD
 Beam Propagation
.
Mauna Kea Beacon Received Beam Characteristics:
Mauna Loa
PH = Taer × Tprop × P0
Beacon
Power at output
Aerosol “Propagation
the receiver power
transmittance transmittance”
(0.53)

Rao Gudimetla, AFRL/RD

Mikhail Vorontsov, University of Dayton

Haleakala (near AMOS)

Classical atmospheric
turbulence theory:

•Developed 1940’s – 1960’s

•Short paths, close to ground

•Predicts correlated power

levels at different wavelength
17
 Power Fluctuations of
Received Beacon Light
IR: λ = 1.06 µm (red lines); Vis.: λ = 0.53 µm (green lines)
Power: Pn   I n  r  d r  S I n  r  S

2
COM: λ = 1.5 µm (blue lines) Rao Gudimetla, AFRL/RD

Pˆ  Pn max n ( Pn ) “3 beacons 19”: 2/13/2010; 10:30 p.m. Mikhail Vorontsov, University

“3 beacon_C”: 2/16/2010; 9:50 p.m. of Dayton
1.00 1.00
532 nm 532 nm

0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
DS1 DS2
1.00 1.00
1064 nm SP2 1064 nm
SP1

0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

1.00 1.00
1550 nm
1550 nm
SP3 SP4

0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
18

0 10 20 30 40 sec 50 0 10 20 30 40 sec 50
3. Non-Resolved Space Object ID

19
Joint Segmentation and Reconstruction
from Multispectral Data
• Raw SD-CASSI simulated image, iterative
reconstructions
• Eight HST materials from NASA as spectral
signatures
• Alternating segmentation and reconstruction
using variational methods lead to excellent
recovery of hyperspectral datacube
• Look for jumps in the spectrally-integrated
fluxes – easily obtained via a local gradient map

Resulting Segmentation

Black – True NASA signatures

Gray – NMU based on I2 norm
Dashed – NMU based on I1 norm
for fit-to-data approximation

Doug Hope, University of New Mexico

Sudhakar Prasad, University of New Mexico
20
David Brady, Duke University
 Unresolved Target Discrimination from
Spatial Distribution of Polarization
Different
target Data acquisition classification Target condition
material discrimination
The field is locally
polarized !!
≠

unresolved
polarization Aristide Dogariu, CREOL, UCF
analyzer
Opt. Express 18, 20105 (2010)
discriminator
5 rough metallic surface 5
10000 kaolin diffuse coating
Complex Degree of Mutual Polarization (CDMP) 10

Ex 
10
2 8000
*
Exi , j  Ey Eyi , j
* 15

CDMP 
ref ref

Ex  
15
20
Exref  Ey Ey ref Ex Exi , j  Eyi*, j Eyi , j
40
* * * 2

6000
ref ref i, j 25
35
20 1.8

1.6
30
1.4
30 25 25

• measure of similarity between the states of polarization at two

4000
1.2

20
35 1
30
15

different points
0.8

40 0.6
10 2000
• provides information above and beyond intensity distribution
35 0.4
45 5
0.2

0
0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 40 0
50 CDMP value 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CDMP value
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

10 20 30 40 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Scattered field 15000

Useful when material discrimination based 5

cellulose 50 polyvinylidene
(speckle) 100
on intensity distributions is impossible 10 membrane
150
15 10000
2 200 2

It provides fast, one-shot material 20 1.8 1.8

characterization / target discrimination Corresponding 25

1.6

1.4
250 1.6

1.4
300
CDMP 30
1.2

1
350
1.2

5000
1

CDMP is a robust higher order correlator histogram 35

0.8

0.6
0.8

0.6
400
0.4 0.4
40 0.2 450 0.2
21
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
45 CDMP value 500 0 CDMP value
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 100 200 300 400 500
 Partial Mueller Polarimetry for
Target Detection
A partial Mueller polarimeter makes
fewer than 16 measurements (2
measurements in the case shown) to
affect a polarimetric detection.

Using a partial polarimeter to

differentiate laser damage on a
2-measure target sample
partial Mueller

1-measure
partial Mueller
Increasing Contrast

Passive
polarized

Unpolarized

Decreasing Depolarization

From: F. Goudail and J. S. Tyo, “When is polarimetric imaging

Scott Tyo, University of Arizona 22
preferable to intensity imaging for target detection,” JOSA A, Jan 2011
 Sky Polarization
Measurements and Models
New capability to accurately model : A 5% increase of the real part of the aerosol
refractive index removes a significant bias in
All-sky images of sky radiance (top) scatterplots of measured and modeled DoLP.

Degree of linear polarization (DoLP, bottom) Maximum DoLP: 450 nm

1

Measurement Model 0.8 0

SOS Model

SOS Model
0.6 0

0.4 0

0.2 0

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Polarimeter
Maximum DoLP: 630 nm
1 Maximum DoLP: 450 nm
1
0.8 0
0.8 0.
Model

Model
SOSModel

SOSModel
0.6 0
0.6 0.
0.4 0
SOS

SOS
0.4 0.
0.2 0
0.2 0.
0
00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 23
Polarimeter
Polarimeter
Joseph Shaw, Nathan J. Pust, Andrew R. Dahlberg, Montana State University
 4. Predicting the Location of
Space Objects

~1957-61 Mar 2007 ~2025

24
 Uncertainty Recovery and Prediction of
Orbital Dynamical Systems
Modern information-theoretic
approaches to space
surveillance require
• Substantial increases in computational
requirements for correctly representing
uncertainties;
• Fast, accurate propagation of orbital
trajectories.
Numerica/CU STTR
demonstrated the potential of
• Realistic State and Measurement Error
Uncertainty Computation and Propagation
• A new class of highly efficient A-stable
symplectic orbital propagators providing
centimeter accuracy over many orbital
periods;
• A new gravity model shown to be 3-4 faster
than traditional spherical harmonics.
25
Aubrey Poore, Joshua Horwood, Numerica Corp.
 5. University NanoSatellite Program

27 Universities and More Than 4500 Students Since 1999

26
 FASTRAC Launch

• Launched in Nov 2010 by the Space

Test Program
• Launched on a Minotaur IV rocket to a
650 km orbit
• Launched with six other spacecrafts
• Perfect launch and deployment!
Pictures by David Voss

27
 University NanoSatellite
Timeline
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

NS-2 Launch
NS-2 Delivery NS-2
Delta IV Heavy
3-Corner Sat LV Integration

NANOSAT-1/-2 NS-3 Downselect

NS-3 Launch
Kick-off UT-Austin (FASTRAC) NS-3 Delivery

NANOSAT-3
Kick-off
NS-4 Downselect
Cornell (CUSat) NS-4 Delivery NS-4 Launch

NANOSAT-4 Kick-off

NS-5 NS-5 NS-5

Downselect Delivery Launch

NANOSAT-5 Kick-off

NS-6 NS-6
NS- 6
Downselect Launch
Delivery
NANOSAT-6 Kick-off

NANOSAT-7 Kick-off
NS-7 28
Downselect
 AFIT’s Ground Station
The AFIT of Today is the Air Force of Tomorrow.

 Control of AFIT’s CubeSats

 Control of AFIT’s observatories
 Utilize Common Ground Architecture (CGA) Software to allow
command and control of multiple CubeSats concurrently as well
as permit “lights out” autonomous operations.
 Capability exists at USAFA, USMA, and in the near term at VAFB
 Flying FalconSAT-3
currently
 Will be a new learning
tool for all future 1.3’s
as part of Space 100
training
 Program started with
AFOSR funding

Air University: The Intellectual and Leadership Center of the Air Force
Aim High … Fly, Fight, and Win
 Space Scholars
Selected Research Projects
“Design of a Large Strain Joint Deployable Solar
Panel Mechanism for Cubesats”
Student: Karl Brandt
Mentor: Tom Murphey
“Space Debris Detection in the SMEI Data Archive”
Student: Alessa Makuch
Mentor: Kathleen Kraemer
“6DOF Orbit and Attitude Simulations for Plug
and Play Controller Development”
Student: Benjamin Hanna
Mentor: Capt Doug McFarland
“Enabling Technologies for Electrodynamic
Tethers and Charge Control”
Student: Matthew Knoll
Mentor: David Cooke
“Stowage and Deployment Strength of Rollable
Composite Shell Reflectors”
Student: Tyler Keil
Mentor: Jeremy Banik
“Physical Characteristics of Flare Associated
Sequential Chromospheric Brightenings ”
Student: Michael Kirk
Mentor: K. Balasubramaniam
Questions?