Motion measurement errors analysis for the “one-active” LASAR
The influences of the motion measurement errors (MMEs) to the 3D SAR imaging are analyzed based on the “one-active” LASAR system in this paper. Firstly, the principle and the spatial ambiguity function (AF) of the “one-active” LASAR are introduced. Then the 3D MMEs are introduced according to three forms: the 3D velocity errors and the 3D acceleration errors, the sine vibration errors and the array vibration errors. The 3D SAR system's maximum allowable MMEs are obtained and the influences of the 3D MMEs to the 3D AF are analyzed by the numerical simulation. Finally, the ground experiments and its results are presented, which validate the feasibility of the “one-active” LASAR.
High resolution SAR imaging along circular trajectories
After a first series of full circle SAR acquisitions in L and P-bands during a 2004 joint FOI-ONERA campaign in Sweden, ONERA experimented in 2006 high resolution (15 cm) polarimetric, full circle acquisitions in France and Germany using its X-band sensor. In order to cope with narrower antenna pattern and aircraft attitude fluctuations, a steerable antenna was used. Furthermore, an experimental setup for retrieving high accuracy trajectory was installed. This paper describes the processing of this signals.
Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation: The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of Current State Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. Rationality Review and Democratic Legitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and Judicial Finality ............................................................. xi61 D. Rationality Review and Federalism ......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited .................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for Judicial Review .................................................................................. 1170 B. Institutional Competence and Welfare Litigation ................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... " 179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudence of Consequences .............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implications for Welfare Litigation ........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194