A New Transformative Framework for Data Assimilation and Calibration of Physical Ionosphere‐Thermosphere Models

Accurate specification and prediction of the ionosphere-thermosphere (IT) environment, driven by external forcing, is crucial to the space community. In this work, we present a new transformative framework for data assimilation and calibration of the physical IT models. The framework has two main components: (i) the development of a quasi-physical dynamic reduced order model (ROM) that uses a linear approximation of the underlying dynamics and effect of the drivers, and (ii) data assimilation and calibration of the ROM through estimation of the ROM coefficients that represent the model parameters. A reduced order surrogate for thermospheric mass density from the Thermosphere Ionosphere Electrodynamic General Circulation Model (TIE-GCM) was developed in previous work. This work concentrates on the second component of the framework - data assimilation and calibration of the TIE-GCM ROM. The new framework has two major advantages: (i) a dynamic ROM that combines the speed of empirical models for real-time capabilities with the predictive capabilities of physical models which has the potential to facilitate improved uncertainty quantification (UQ) using large ensembles, and (ii) estimation of model parameters rather than the driver(s)/input(s) which allows calibration of the model, thus avoiding degradation of model performance in the absence of continuous data. We validate the framework using accelerometer-derived density estimates from CHAMP and GOCE. The framework is a first of its kind, simple yet robust and accurate method with high potential for providing real-time operational updates to the state of the upper atmosphere in the context of drag modeling for Space Situational Awareness and Space Traffic Management.

[1]  Jonas Mockus,et al.  On Bayesian Methods for Seeking the Extremum , 1974, Optimization Techniques.

[2]  A. Hedin MSIS‐86 Thermospheric Model , 1987 .

[3]  T. Fuller‐Rowell,et al.  An ensemble‐type Kalman filter for neutral thermospheric composition during geomagnetic storms , 2004 .

[4]  J. M. Picone,et al.  Thermospheric densities derived from spacecraft orbits: Accurate processing of two‐line element sets , 2005 .

[5]  J. Picone,et al.  Climatology of globally averaged thermospheric mass density , 2010 .

[6]  Richard Linares,et al.  A methodology for reduced order modeling and calibration of the upper atmosphere , 2017 .

[7]  D. Drob,et al.  Nrlmsise-00 Empirical Model of the Atmosphere: Statistical Comparisons and Scientific Issues , 2002 .

[8]  C. Reigber,et al.  CHAMP mission status , 2002 .

[9]  T. Başar,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2001 .

[10]  M. Watkins,et al.  The gravity recovery and climate experiment: Mission overview and early results , 2004 .

[11]  J. Forbes,et al.  Principal modes of thermospheric density variability: Empirical orthogonal function analysis of CHAMP 2001–2008 data , 2010 .

[12]  Steven L. Brunton,et al.  Dynamic Mode Decomposition with Control , 2014, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst..

[13]  Eric K. Sutton,et al.  A New Method of Physics‐Based Data Assimilation for the Quiet and Disturbed Thermosphere , 2018, Space Weather.

[14]  Tomoko Matsuo,et al.  Thermospheric mass density specification using an ensemble Kalman filter , 2013 .

[15]  A. Hedin,et al.  A revised thermospheric model based on mass spectrometer and incoherent scatter data - MSIS-83 , 1983 .

[16]  T. Fuller‐Rowell,et al.  Data assimilation of thermospheric mass density , 2012 .

[17]  S. Bruinsma "GOCE+ Theme 3: Air density and wind retrieval using GOCE data" , 2013 .

[18]  P. Schmid,et al.  Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data , 2008, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[19]  Joseph E. Salah,et al.  A global thermospheric model based on mass spectrometer and incoherent scatter data MSIS, 1. N2 density and temperature , 1977 .

[20]  William J. Burke,et al.  A New Empirical Thermospheric Density Model JB2008 Using New Solar and Geomagnetic Indices , 2008 .

[21]  Gérard Thuillier,et al.  The DTM-2000 empirical thermosphere model with new data assimilation and constraints at lower boundary: accuracy and properties , 2003 .

[22]  Richard Linares,et al.  A Quasi‐Physical Dynamic Reduced Order Model for Thermospheric Mass Density via Hermitian Space‐Dynamic Mode Decomposition , 2018, 1802.08901.

[23]  M. Drinkwater,et al.  GOCE: ESA’s First Earth Explorer Core Mission , 2003 .

[24]  R. Biancale,et al.  Improvement of the empirical thermospheric model DTM: DTM94 – a comparative review of various temporal variations and prospects in space geodesy applications , 1998 .

[25]  Cesar E. Valladares,et al.  The JB2006 empirical thermospheric density model , 2008 .

[26]  Noelia Sanchez-ortiz,et al.  Evaluation of the DTM-2009 thermosphere model for benchmarking purposes , 2012 .

[27]  T. Bayes An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances , 2003 .

[28]  D. Knipp,et al.  Thermospheric Mass Density Specification: Synthesis of Observations and Models , 2013 .

[29]  Jonas Radtke,et al.  Interactions of the space debris environment with mega constellations—Using the example of the OneWeb constellation , 2017 .

[30]  Earl Lawrence,et al.  Specification of the Ionosphere-Thermosphere Using the Ensemble Kalman Filter , 2014, DyDESS.

[31]  Xiaoqing Pi,et al.  Systematic Evaluation of Ionosphere/Thermosphere (IT) Models , 2014 .

[32]  Josef Koller,et al.  Comparing Physical Drag Coefficients Computed Using Different Gas–Surface Interaction Models , 2014 .

[33]  C. F. Minter,et al.  Estimating the state of the thermospheric composition using Kalman filtering , 2004 .

[34]  Bruce R. Bowman,et al.  High Accuracy Satellite Drag Model (HASDM) , 2002 .

[35]  M. Codrescu,et al.  An Ensemble Kalman Filter for the Thermosphere‐Ionosphere , 2018 .

[36]  T. Fuller‐Rowell,et al.  Data assimilation for neutral thermospheric species during geomagnetic storms , 2004 .

[37]  E. Sutton,et al.  New density estimates derived using accelerometers on board the CHAMP and GRACE satellites , 2016 .

[38]  S. Bruinsma,et al.  Assessing the performance of thermospheric modeling with data assimilation throughout solar cycles 23 and 24 , 2015, 1503.03207.

[39]  S. Solomon,et al.  The NCAR TIE‐GCM , 2014 .

[40]  Earl Lawrence,et al.  Modeling satellite drag coefficients with response surfaces , 2014 .

[41]  R. A. DeCarlo Linear Systems: A State Variable Approach With Numerical Implementation , 1989 .

[42]  Richard Linares,et al.  Photometric Data from Nonresolved Objects for Improved Drag and Reentry Prediction , 2018 .

[43]  Sean L. Bruinsma,et al.  The DTM-2013 thermosphere model , 2015 .

[44]  L. Jacchia Revised static models of the thermosphere and exosphere with empirical temperature profiles , 1971 .

[45]  Dennis S. Bernstein,et al.  Data assimilation and driver estimation for the Global Ionosphere-Thermosphere Model using the Ensemble Adjustment Kalman Filter , 2013 .

[46]  F. Barlier,et al.  A thermospheric model based on satellite drag data , 2017 .