the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ground-based HF to VHF radar calibration by scattering off a stratospheric balloon
Abstract. The knowledge of radar system properties is crucial for judging radar performance and correctly interpreting received raw and analysed data. The most critical part of that is the radiation pattern, which is often very difficult to measure for atmospheric/ionospheric sounding radars as the beam pointing direction is often almost vertical. Another fundamental aspect of multi-receiver radars is the accurate knowledge of receiver phases, which are a prerequisite for interferometry applications. Both topics present challenges for large-aperture radars, and are even more difficult for those operating in the lower highfrequency band. On May 28th 2024 the stratospheric balloon mission HELIX was launched with its payload at the Esrange Space Center, which later flew very close the Norwegian island Andøya. This drifting structure was seen on three co-located radar systems covering the lowermost HF (3.17 MHz) and the lower VHF (32.55 MHz and 53.5 MHz) region. The detected backscatter was used to perform active phase calibration of the VHF system, which allowed the verification of the target positioning by interferometry for all three radars. Furthermore, it enabled the general confirmation of the two-way radiation pattern of all the systems.
- Preprint
(3644 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5722', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Toralf Renkwitz, 06 Feb 2026
reply
We thank the reviewer #1 for his help in evaluating our manuscript.
Curiously we indeed missed to clearly stated the operating frequency of MAARSY. Instead we only mentioned it in the general description of the range covered by all the radar system involved in this study.
We will add this information at the introduction of MAARSY.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5722-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Toralf Renkwitz, 06 Feb 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5722', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Feb 2026
reply
I found the manuscript very interesting and the technical content to be of high quality and suitable for publication. I suggest the authors make a copy-editing pass over the manuscript before publication. Some examples that could be improved are as follows:
6. even more -> especially
16. these … are -> this … is
35 northnorwegian
66: CassiopeiaA -> Cassiopeia A
100: 96.3° then eq. 1 93.7°?
Fig 8: colorbar label missing (currently located in title string). 8 hexagons? Perhaps 8 antenna groups?
287: “maximum AoA coverage by SIMONe (≈ 150 km), Saura (≈ 120 km) and MAARSY (≈ 40 km) was
accomplished.” Would it make sense to express this coverage also in angular units? i.e. how far off Zenith can each radar provide accurate AoA?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5722-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Toralf Renkwitz, 06 Feb 2026
reply
The evaluation of the submitted manuscript is very appreciated.
We agree on the lingual deficits and adapted to the suggestions, and thank for finding them.
>96.3° then eq. 1 93.7°?
Unfortunately, this was phrased too vaguely. What was meant here, is that one is the measured mean phase-offset between the antennas within the array, while the equation represents a free-space approximation. However, the two values do not differ greatly. We rephrase it accordingly.>Fig 8: colorbar label missing (currently located in title string). 8 hexagons? Perhaps 8 antenna groups?
Correct, we didn't add a label to the colorbar in Figures 7-9 yet, but marked it in the figure titles, we will add the labels to the colorbars.
The term "hexagons" is actually related to our internal name of the smallest subarray groups and it has been used as such in earlier publications, but only after a proper introduction. We correct the term for: "hexagon-shaped subarray groups".
>287: “maximum AoA coverage by SIMONe (≈ 150 km), Saura (≈ 120 km) and MAARSY (≈ 40 km) was accomplished.” Would it make sense to express this coverage also in angular units? i.e. how far off Zenith can each radar provide accurate AoA?We agree, the given distances are likely confusing and will add the corresponding zenith angles for each distance.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5722-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Toralf Renkwitz, 06 Feb 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 175 | 94 | 28 | 297 | 36 | 32 |
- HTML: 175
- PDF: 94
- XML: 28
- Total: 297
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript is well written and clearly organized, which facilitates comprehension of the proposed methodology. It presents an interesting and innovative technique for the calibration and inter-comparison of different operational radars by exploiting the scattering characteristics of a stratospheric balloon. Although the underlying analysis can be technically demanding, the authors describe the technique in sufficient detail, allowing the reader to understand the approach and assess its applicability and robustness.
Section 2.1 MAARSY radar. Please include the frequency of the radar