On 7 December 1995, the Galileo probe entered Jupiter's atmosphere. The Net Flux Radiometer (NFR) on board the probe, measured upward and downward fluxes in the visible and infrared. At the University of Arizona, we have analyzed the data from the two visible-light channels, as well as the solar contributions to the thermal channels. The results are being prepared for submission to JGR in early September

Tomasko, Martin G.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

NASA-C_-205235
/'
The University of Arizona
Department of Planetary Sciences
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory
Galileo Net Flux Radiometer Report
1997
Martin G. Tomasko
AUG2 6 1997
l,l.ldJz_.s
<_,__-4_ _.'/1__' -__'"
NASA-Ames Award N ° NAG 2-906
UA FRS N ° 346170
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19970026950 2020-06-16T01:24:52+00:00Z
Galileo Net Flux Radiometer report--1997
On 7 December 1995, the Galileo probe entered Jupiter's atmosphere. The Net Flux
Radiometer (NFR) on board the probe, measured upward and downward fluxes in the
visible and infrared. At the University of Arizona, we have analyzed the data from the
two visible-light channels, as well as the solar contributions to the thermal channels. The
results are being prepared for submission to JGR in early September.
Overview of Net Flux Radiometer measurements
The NFR had five spectral channels: A (3-200 Bm), C (3.5-5.8 Bin), and D (14-200
_m) measured thermal fluxes, and the analyses of these was primarily done by University
of Wisconsin personnel; channels B (0.3-3.5 lam) and E (0.6-3.5 Bin) are sensitive to
broad band solar and infrared solar radiation, respectively. The analysis of the latter two
was primarily carried out at the UA. In addition to the spectral channels, a "blind"
channel was included as a witness to non-radiative perturbations, which were significant.
Data were obtained from about 0.4 bars to about 15 bars. Sromovsky et al. corrected the
net flux observations by subtracting from each channel a non-radiative term proportional
to the blind channel's observations (NFcorrected = NFchannel - Mchannel *
(GAINchannel / GAINblind) * NFblind; MB = 0.75_+0.10 and ME - 1.30_+0.05). A
similar correction has been applied to the up fluxes (MB = 0.9_+0.1 and ME = 2.0-L-_0.2).
In Figure 1, corrected up and net flux profiles are shown for low, nominal and high
values of the correction factor.
The channel A and C measurements had some contribution from direct sunlight,
necessitating close collaboration between UA and UW, including two visits by Mark
Lemmon to UW in March and June 1997. In addition, the non-radiative contribution to
the measurements is only partly understood, and is currently being investigated at the
UW.
The measurements are made by chopping up and down at 2 Hz, and reporting the
accumulated difference every six seconds (one integration cycle). In addition, the up flux
is measured by chopping between down-looking and looking at an internal black body
once each data cycle (20 integration cycles). The contribution of non-radiative effects to
the up flux is not yet understood.
Investigation of the solar pulse
÷ + d
IIIIlilll
i
I I I I I
, ,t ,I,I i,l,,,,_IJ , I, L,,I ,I-'''L
(z.m M) xnlJ papa.lao3
I I I I
(r- m A_} xnlJ palaaaao3
Within the first several net flux measurements, there is a large amplitude
modulation. This modulation has been identified as the contribution of direct sunlight
(Sromovsky et al., 1996, Science 272, 851-854): as the NFR chops up and down, the
probe is spinning at 30 to 40 RPM, and direct sunlight enters the field of view in some
integrations, but not others. The interpretation of this contribution from direct sunlight is
not very sensitive to the corrections for non-radiative effects, as those effects (as
measured by the blind channel) were small at the beginning of the descent.
First, the solar modulation seen in the B-channel alone was studied. After taking
into account the spatial field of view of the NFR, the chopping frequency, and the
integration method, radiative transfer models were compared with the observed
modulation for a variety of assumed spin rates and initial orientations. The best fit spin
rate was 36.0 _+ 0.15 RPM, consistent with LRD measurements of the probe spin rate
(Lou Lanzerotti, personal communication); note that, because of various frequencies
interacting, there are many other possible solutions in the 20 to 65 RPM range.
Below, 0.58 bars, this modulation was not observed. As the spin rate decays and
the various frequencies beat with each other, the modulation can temporarily go away in
the models, but in order to completely eliminate the modulation a cloud of optical depth
near (or larger than) two is required. Thus, it has been argued that there is an ammonia
ice cloud in the 0.5 to 0.6 bar region (Sromovsky et al. 1996).
Above 0.6 bars, the modulation in B is correlated with modulation in E, A, and C.
The modulation in E is understood: given the relative amounts of sunlight in the two
bandpasses, the modulation in E is expected to be about 50% (it can vary slowly with size
of cloud particles) that in B, as is observed. The modulations in A and C are much larger
than would be expected based only on the relative amounts of sunlight. The presence of
small cloud particles (0.5 to 1 !am) above the site of the measurements (i.e., above 0.5
bars) can reduce the B and E modulation relative to the A and C modulation. However,
this causes the modulation amplitudes to be consistently too small compared to the
models. While Lemmon was in Wisconsin, possible mechanisms to boost the overall
modulation amplitude were investigated. We were able to rule out small angle
scattering--the modulation amplitude can be increased by scattering light into a solar
aureole, because the Sun is at the edge of the NFR field of view, but the maximum
increase is too small. We were also able to rule out pendulum type motion, including
coning--the Sun is raised within the NFR field of view, giving a factor of four boost.
Together with a 39 RPM spin rate this could reproduce all the observed modulation
amplitude,but only if the pendulumfrequency were large comparedto the 6-second
integration or approximately the sameas the rotation frequency--but it is about 5
seconds,which will not work. NFR observationsalonecannotrule out aconstanttilt of
theprobe,but sucha tilt wouldhaveto fall within a narrowrangeof angles(about 19+2
degrees);and it hasnot beenobservedin the accelerometerdata. It is possiblethat the
presenceof athermalradiationsource(suchasacloud) is thecauseof themodulationin
thethermalchannels.In orderto getsimilarphasingof themodulationbetweenthesolar
and thermalchannels,the cloudwould haveto fall within a narrow size range(too big
and it is seenoften--there is little or no modulation;too small andthere is not enough
signal within the NFR field of view) and would haveto be in just the right position.
Thus,we do notyet havea goodexplanationof themodulationobservedin the thermal
channels.
Radiative transfer models
The capability to invert the net and up flux measurements in order to get a profile of
scattering and absorption in the atmosphere was developed at the UA. This inversion was
performed on the best calibration of the data and reported on at the 1996 DPS meeting
(Lemmon et al. 1996), but the up flux measurements are not yet believed.
Inversion process
Down in Up out1 t
Reflection, ]Transmission
Down out Up in
A layer is defined between two
measurements of the up flux. The up
and net fluxes are combined into down
fluxes. Given up and down fluxes at the
top and bottom of the layer, the layer's
reflection and transmission properties
are uniquely defined by the relations:
Dout = T • Din + R ° Uin
Uout = T ° Uin + R • Din
(1)
(2)
Figure 2: Layer definition
where T and R are the effective layer transmission and reflection for the bandpass.
These describe the effects of layer opacity, but also respond to effects such as sunset and
the NFR spatial response, which must be included in the model. Parts of the layer
opacity are the (relatively) well-known methane absorption and Rayleigh scattering,
which are included in the model, and parts are unknown. The latter is the target of the
inversion. The up flux has been corrected for perturbations and points have been selected
to avoid pathological conditions such as negative up fluxes or large increases of up flux
with depth. The down flux is (up - net), where the net flux has been appropriately
corrected and sampled in the region of the up flux measurement.
A standard Jupiter model was created. This model has methane, hydrogen, and
helium, and has a haze in the troposphere A cloud with optical depth 0.5 has been added
between 0.5 and 0.58 bars due to the observation of a disappearance of the solar
modulation. At this stage, the exact nature of scattering above 0.58 bars (the first UF
measurement) is unimportant--the T and R properties of the layer respond primarily to
opacity within the layer. Opacity outside of a particular layer has a second order effect
within the layer by changing the spectral distribution of light entering the layer.
When this model is run, the quantity (1-T-R), which is a good measure of absorption
and responds only weakly to scattering, has non-zero values due to the methane
absorption and sunset. The quantity R (or R/(R+T)), which is a good measure of
scattering (the latter responds weakly to absorption), has non zero values due to Rayleigh
scattering. The algorithm is to iterate a perturbation method as follows. The sensitivity
of the layer properties (generically used to indicate R and T) to the addition of scattering
and absorption opacity is separately tested. A next generation model is created where
opacity is added to each layer in an attempt to fit the measurements. This is continued
until a satisfactory fit is achieved. Note that the successful completion of this process
does not guarantee a fit to the data--the layer properties, as defined by changes in flux
within a layer, are fit. Given the negligible up flux at the bottom of the measurements
(near sunset), if the down flux at 0.58 bars in the model matches that which was
observed, the fit will be exact. Otherwise, the up and net fluxes predicted by the model
will differ from that observed by a factor of Dtop-of-atmosphere.model/ Drop-of-
atmosphere, observed.
The above algorithm is first applied to the E channel data. After successful inversion,
the opacities longward of 0.65 gln are held fixed while the opacities for shorter
wavelengths are allowed to vary. If the B and E channel data are inconsistent (e.g., B
requires little opacity in a given layer, and the opacity in E is so large that even zero
opacity short of 0.65 gm provides too large an effect), the inversion will fail here.
Inversion results
The model (Fig. 3) can be made to fit the long wave (E) channel data arbitrarily
well by adjusting the layer scattering and absorption properties. After these opacities are
determined for wavelengths greater than 0.65 lam (to which E is sensitive), the broad band
(B) channel data cannot be fit arbitrarily well. In all cases, if the E channel data are fit,
there is too much scattering opacity for the B channel to be fit, even when the scattering
opacity is set to zero for wavelengths less than 0.65 _m. The model can be compared to
the LRD radiance data (Lanzerotti et al., Science 272, 858-60, 1996), as in Fig 4. The
LRD spectral dependence is similar to the NFR E channel; thus the profile cannot be fit
while simultaneously having the up and net fluxes fit the corrected E channel data,
because the NFR sees the brightness falling off higher in the atmosphere.
The aerosol structure retrieved has a blue-scattering cloud above l bar (in addition
to the presumed cloud at 0.55--0.6 bars). Also, a red-scattering cloud below 3 bars is
required, although we do not have a physical analog for this feature. In addition, a red
absorber is required in the I to 5 bar region in order to reduce the E net flux (there is only
weak absorption at shorter wavelengths). The absorber in question cannot be CH4.
Methane absorption is already accounted for before introducing aerosol opacity. Further,
uncertainty in methane absorption coefficients is unable to account for the red absorber.
The solar heating rate can be calculated for the model, and averaged over a Jovian
day (Fig. 5). It is somewhat model independent, as the solar net flux profile must look
much like the B channel net flux profile. The solar heating rate is sensitive to
uncertainties in the scheme for removing the non-radiative terms, as it is determined from
the gradient of the solar net flux profile.
Publications
Sromovsky, Best, Collard, Fry, Revercomb, Freedman, Orton, Hayden, Tomasko, and
Lemmon 1996. Solar and thermal radiation in Jupiter's atmosphere: Initial results
of the Galileo probe Net Flux Radiometer. Science 272, 851-854.
Conference Presentations
Sromovsky, L.A., A.D. Collard, P.M. Fry, H.E. Revercomb, F.A. Best, G.S. Orton, M.G.
Tomasko, M.T. Lemmon, R.F. Freedman, and J. Hayden. Preliminary results of
the Galileo Net Flux Radiometer experiment. LPSC
Sromovsky, Collard, Fry, Revercomb, Best, Orton, Tomasko, Lemmon, Freedman, and
Hayden. Early results of the Galileo Net Flux Radiometer Experiment. AGU
m=
I I I I
- _
_ _
b
- [
...........................
©x
n I I I
i
=
(z -m M) xnlJ
(_.m A/t) xnlj
xZP
I
• Iml t",l
I I I I I I I 1 I I I
ill, I I I I I Itll I 1 I I
(LIFO! / xnq) a3u_!p_i
Solar heating at Galileo Hot Spot,
7 December 1995
1
2
5
lO
E
lilt
: I
=t/ it I I I I I I
0.002
Ill1 _lll
0.004
tT_!
0.006 0.008
Heating (K / day)
Lemmon, Tomasko, Sromovsky, and Collard. Inversion of Galileo Net Flux Radiometer
results for Cloud Properties. DPS
Collard, Sromovsky, Fry, Orton, Lemmon, and Tomasko. Thermal Radiative Fluxes in
Jupiter's Atmosphere: Implications of the Galileo Probe Net Flux Radiometer
Results. DPS


Galileo Net Flux Radiometer Report 1997

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server