1. SABER Instrument Performance and Measurement Requirements

2. SABER Instrument In-Orbit Performance Is Excellent 75 kg, 77 watts, 77 x 104 x 63 cm, 4 kbs - SABER instrument is performing in orbit as designed -FPA temperatures are being held steady at ~ 74K by the cooler -Cooler performance excellent and stable -Scan system is performing well -Noise performance is excellent -Data collection is routine No instrument anomalies Experiment Status

3. SABER Instrument Focal Plane Temperature Stability

4. SABER Instrument Refrigerator Cold Link Efficiency Trend

5. SABER Instrument Refrigerator Compressor Stroke Time Trend

6. SABER Instrument Limb Scan Mirror Subsystem Performance Scan mirror changes usually affect < ~ 100 scans per day and cause no data loss. No time trend evident. January 2002 to January 2003January 2003 to January 2004

7. ChannelParameter Jan 8, 2002 * April 25, 2002 * Jan 24, 2004 * 1CO2 N2.6 2.7 2CO2 W2.72.9 3CO2 W2.6 2.8 4O33.02.63.4 5H2O3.22.72.8 6NO3.02.52.8 7 CO2 (4.3  m) 1.61.71.8 8OH(A)2.02.12.3 9OH(B)2.32.72.9 10 O2( 1  ) 2.02.32.1 SABER Noise Performance In-Orbit is Stable * RMS Counts Gains set to noise = 3 counts. All channels met or exceeded specifications. In-orbit performance slightly better than laboratory.

8. Parameter Altitude Range (km) Estimated Accuracy Mean Diff. With Correlative Data Correlative Data Source Temperature10 – 100 1.5 K, 15 - 80 km 4.0 K, 80 - 100 km 2 - 3 K Lidar, NCEP, GPS, HALOE O 3 (9.6  m) 15 – 100 20%, 15 - 90 km 30%, 90 - 100 km 30% Lidar, HALOE O 3 (1.27  m) 50 – 9520%, 50 - 95 km30% HALOE H2OH2O15 – 80 20%, 15 – 70 km 30%, 70 – 80 km 30% HALOE CO 2 85 – 15030%, 95 – 140 km??% TIME-GCM *, CWAS rocket SABER temperature and constituent accuracies inferred from correlative data comparisons * Qualitative comparison only

9. Coincidence 0.4 hour 1 o latitude 2 o longitude SABER LTE Temperature Compared With Lidar at Mauna Loa on April 19, 2002

10. SABER and UKMO temperatures at 10 mb (~30 km) show close agreement SABERUKMO

11. SABER V1.04 mapped geopotential height and derived geostrophic winds at ~65 km February 5, 2002 February 12, 2002 Geopotential HeightGeostrophic Winds

12. Parameter Measurement Range Estimated Accuracy Observed Accuracy Current (Potential) OH(v), 1.06  m OH(v), 2.10  m 80 – 100 km3%, 80 - 90 km 10%, 90 - 100 km 10%(3%) ___(20%) O 2 ( 1  )* 50 – 105 km3%, 50 - 90 km10%(3%) O3 (9.6  m) (Night) 15 – 100 km3%, 50 - 90 km3-7% CO 2 (15  m) 15 – 120 km3%, 90 – 120 km3-7% 90-100km CO 2 (4.3  m) (Day) 85 – 150 km3%, 95 – 140 km3-5% * Applies to daytime, nighttime and twilight SABER Energetics (Energy Loss Rate) Accuracies Based on Laboratory and In-Flight Calibration Potential -High altitudes still contaminated by “hysteresis” and off-axis scatter. Corrections expected to reduce uncertainty to “potential” values

13. Parameter Measurement Range Estimated Precision Observed In-Orbit Precision Temperature10 – 100 km 0.5K, 15 - 65 km 1K, 65 - 75 km 2K, 75 - 100 km 1K, 15 - 65 km 2K, 65 - 75 km 5K, 75 - 100 km O 3 (9.6  m) 15 – 100 km 5%, 15 - 65 km 20%, 65 - 90 km 5%, 15 - 65 km 20%, 65 - 90 km O 3 (1.27  m) 50 – 95 km 10%, 55 - 85 km 15%, 85 - 95 km 10%, 55 - 85 km 5%, 85 - 95 km H2OH2O15 – 80 km 10%, 20 - 65 km 25%. 65 - 80 km 10%, 20 - 65 km 25%. 65 - 80 km CO 2 65-100 km10%, 65 - 100 km SABER Temperature and Constituent Estimated and Observed Precisions

14. Parameter Measurement Range Estimated Precision Observed In-Orbit Precision OH(v), 1.06  m OH(v), 2.10  m 80 – 100 km 0.5%, 80 - 90 km 5%, 90 - 100 km 1.0%, 80 - 90 km 10%, 90 - 100 km O 2 ( 1  ) 50 – 105 km 0.05%, 50 - 70 km 0.2%, 70 - 80 km 1%, 80 – 90 km 0.05%, 50 - 70 km 0.2%, 70 - 80 km 3.0%, 80 – 90 km O 3 (9.6  m) (Night) 15 – 100 km 0.5%, 50 - 70 km 2%, 70 - 90 km 1.2%, 50 - 70 km 5.0%, 70 - 90 km CO 2 (15  m) 15 – 120 km 3%, 80 - 100 km5.0%, 80 - 100 km NO90 – 180 km 3%, 100 - 150 km 5%, 150 – 170 km 1.4%, 100 - 150 km 5.0%, 150 – 170 km CO 2 (4.3  m) (Day) 85 – 150 km 10%, 95 - 140 km4.0%, 95 - 140 km (Day) SABER Energetics (Energy Loss Rate) Estimated and Observed Precisions

15. SABER Instrument understanding near a mature stage Substantial progress made in removing known artifacts arising due to instrument effects - Made important corrections to IFC BB emissivities; T, O 3, H 2 O - Knowledge of channel vertical alignment shown to be accurate -Moon scans provided excellent knowledge of off-axis signals due to FOV side lobes and mirror scatter - Detector focal plane ice build-up due to “trapped” water vapor “in-hand” - High altitude radiance bias in short wave channels; 20 x noise up, 7 x noise down scan - Possible O 3 spectral effect remaining

16. SABER Focal Plane Channel Locations # 4 O 3 9.3  m # 5 H 2 O 6.8  m # 2 CO 2 - W 15.0  m # 6 NO 5.3  m # 1 CO 2 - N 15.2  m # 3 CO 2 - W 15.0  m# 7 CO 2 4.26  m # 8 OH(A) 2.07  m# 9 OH(B) 1.64  m # 10 O 2 ( 1  ) 1.28  m 1.49 o 2 km @ 60 km

17. Effects of off-axis scatter on high altitude Signals in the OH and O2( 1  ) channels

18. SABER O 3 channel Lunar scan FOV Data

19. SABER CO 2 W channel Lunar scan FOV Data

20. SABER Lunar and Laboratory derived FOV functions LunarLaboratory

21. Calculated water ice transmission compared to observed SABER values 1  m thick ice layer

22. SABER CO 2 W Responsitivity Changes Since Launch

23. SABER responsivity slopes are steadily decreasing after each power down Responsivity slope Time

24. SABER Up and Down Scan Radiance Comparison for the O 2 ( 1  ) channel Date: 2002185, Orbit 03094 Channel 10 Day

25. SABER O 3 channel spectral response data Wavenumber cm -1 O 3 Relative Spectral Response