the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
MethaneSAT instrument spectral response functions during pre-launch calibration and on-orbit performance
Abstract. MethaneSAT was a push-broom, area-mapping satellite that quantified area and point source methane (CH4) emissions across global target areas. Two sensors onboard MethaneSAT measured short-wave infrared absorption bands of CH4, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. We report novel methods for MethaneSAT spectral calibration during pre-launch measurements and on-orbit operation. We derive and compare instrument spectral response functions (ISRFs) measured during ground calibrations at the individual sensor level at three temperatures and at the integrated flight system level. Point spread functions are used to develop peak and ghost stray-light kernels. Underlying line shape exposures were stray-light corrected based on these kernels prior to deriving ISRFs. Novel methods robustly merge ISRFs at three overlapping slit illumination fields of view and identify bad ISRF positions for gap filling. We evaluate four distinct ISRF data sets for on-orbit calibration across three different thermal conditions by squeezing the ISRF in level 2 (L2) retrievals. ISRF widths varied by <5% between calibration experiments across a wider range of thermal environments than those observed on-orbit. The use of ISRFs measured at temperatures closest to those observed on-orbit resulted in a value close to unity for the parameter that squeezes the ground-based calibration derived ISRFs in L2 retrievals. A time series of these squeeze factor deviations demonstrate relatively stable on-orbit spectral calibration across the mission duration with <0.4% variations. Our results demonstrate stable on-orbit instrument spectral response and on-orbit wavelength shift variations compared with ground-based calibration across expected on-orbit thermal conditions. These results support the high accuracy and stability of MethaneSAT L2 retrievals.
- Preprint
(4044 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2675', Dietrich G. Feist, 06 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2675', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Oct 2026
The authors describe results from a comprehensive prelaunch test program and describe the artifacts encountered in great detail. Additionally, the results of this calibration are applied to flight spectra and flight retrieval algorithms. Complex, robust, and carefully considered algorithms were implemented at many steps in the processing chain. The manuscript could be strengthened in some places with additional context, visualizations, or commentary on the significance of some findings.
Plots or images of the Level 1A or Level 1B spectra from at least one the inflight scenes used would be a valuable complement to the bandpasses & FWHMs in the text.
In section 2.1 there is a summary of the thermal state in different tests. Table 3 with additional detail should be mentioned. Were thermal stability with time, or gradients across different components considered?
Fig 2: is it understood why the shapes of the peak and ghost kernels are different for the two spectrometers?
Fig 3b: did the ghost kernels over-correct slightly?
Fig 5: why do the CO2/CH4 lineshapes have a sharp corner and why are they asymmetric? Is there a consequence to science from this property?
Fig 8: why is the o2 spatial pattern very different / less smooth for flight-system nominal? This pattern is also apparent in Fig 11.
Sec 4 (and throughout): the team did an excellent job identifying subtle patterns in the hardware performance. More should be said about their consequences before and after algorithmic mitigation.Spectral residuals or goodness of fit from L2 retrievals could also be valuable for characterizing performance, though that may be beyond the scope of an already broad paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2675-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 390 | 193 | 64 | 647 | 54 | 58 |
- HTML: 390
- PDF: 193
- XML: 64
- Total: 647
- BibTeX: 54
- EndNote: 58
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript "MethaneSAT instrument spectral response functions during pre-launch calibration and on-orbit performance" presents mehods for checking and monitoring the spectral calibration of the MethaneSAT instrument before launch and in orbit. Apparently, even on the ground, it was not possible to cover the instrument's full field of view during a single measurement, so instrument spectral response funcions (ISRF) obtained in different measurements had to be merged. Since MethaneSAT did not have on-board calibration references like diodes or the ability to perform sun calibrations, more indirect methose had to be applied. A squeeze factor for the ISRF was introduced as a proxy for first-order thermal effects. This squeeze factor could also be derived in orbit, so the stability of the in-orbit ISRF compared to the on-ground ISRF could be verified.
The reported experience and results are very useful for other missions that use a similar design. The squeeze-factor method appears to be a useful tool to monitor ISRF stability when other more direct methods are not available. In fact, even if such calibration means are available, it would be a good idea to verify the squeeze factor method directly with them.
In our own mission (CO2Image), we will certainly read the manuscript carefully and try to learn from the MethaneSAT team's experience. I'll pass this on to our calibration team who have more expertise with the methods described here.
In my opinion, the manuscript should be published with the following minor revisions.
General comments
Minor comments