National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NationalSatelliteLand Remote Sensing Data Archive
Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes of the
Second Meeting of Third 2-Year Charter (2004-2006)
Held at: American Institute of Architects
April 12-14, 2005
Committee Membership
Academia (2)
Laboratory researcher-data user:Dr. Gerald Nelson, University of Illinois
Classroom educator-data user:Dr. Samuel Goward, University of
Maryland
Government (4)
Federal data user:Dr. Brad Doorn, USDA/FAS
Federal data user:Dr. Darrel Williams, NASA
State/Local data user:Ms. Amelia Budge, University of New
Mexico, EDAC
State/Local data user:Dr. George Seielstad*, University of
North Dakota
Industry (4)
Licensed data provider:Mr. Gene Colabatistto*, Space Imaging
Licensed data provider:Mr. Herb Satterlee, CEO Digital Globe,
Inc.
Value-added industry:Ms. Kass Green, Space Imaging,
Retired
Commercial industry:Mr. David Jones*, Storm Center
Communications, Inc.
Other (5)
At-large from any sectorMr. David Brown*, Library and Archives
of Canada
At-large from any sectorProf. Joanne Gabrynowicz, University of
Mississippi
At-large from any sectorMs. Roberta Lenczowski*, NGA
At-large from any sectorMr. Daniel Dubno, CBS News
At-large from any sectorMr. James Frelk, NASA
Dr. Kenneth Davidson, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Retired
Mr. Thomas Holm, USGS EROS
Designated Federal Officer
Mr. John Faundeen, USGS Archivist, EROS
*New members
Record of Committee Meeting Attendance
April 12-14, 2005October 19-21, 2004
Present:Present:
Mr. David BrownMr. David Brown
Ms. Amelia BudgeMs. Amelia Budge
Mr. Gene ColabatisttoMr. Gene Colabatistto
Dr. Bradley Doorn*Dr. Bradley Doorn
Mr. Daniel DubnoProf. Joanne Gabrynowicz
Mr. James FrelkDr. Samuel Goward
Prof. Joanne GabrynowiczMs. Kass Green
Dr. Samuel GowardMr. Dave Jones
Ms. Kass GreenMs. Roberta Lenczowski
Mr. Dave JonesDr. Gerald Nelson
Ms. Roberta LenczowskiDr. George Seielstad
Dr. Gerald NelsonDr. Darrel Williams
Mr. Herb Satterlee
Dr. George Seielstad**Mr. John Faundeen, DFO
Dr. Darrel Williams
Mr. James Frelk
Mr. John Faundeen, DFOMr. Thomas Holm
Mr. Thomas Holm
Dr. Kenneth DavidsonAbsent:
* Absent 1st dayMr. Daniel Dubno
** Absent 3rd dayMr. Herb Satterlee
Dr. Kenneth Davidson
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Members introduced themselves and were welcomed to the meeting by R. J. Thompson, Director, NationalCenter for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS). This group has been essential for EROS and helps us move forward. Funding in FY 2006 looks brighter. Key budgeting issues we have are now wrapped about science and not Landsat.
John Faundeen, USGS Archivist, NationalCenter for EROS, welcomed the group. We try to get as much information as possible from the group and to give information to help form opinions.
Thomas Holm, Director, Policy and Legislative Affairs, NationalCenter for EROS reviewed the agenda, and welcomed the group. A lot of things have changed. In November/December, the decision was made to go with Landsat on NPOESS and not have a gap filler. A lot of good positive things have been happening in the remote sensing industry.
Recommendations to Secretary of the Interior and the DOI Response (Attachments A1, A2)
Joanne Gabrynowicz, Law Professor, University of Mississippi, and Co-chair of the Committee reminded members that two recommendations were made to the Secretary, Department of the Interior, at the last meeting. One of the things we were clear about was the continuity of the data. The group recommended a data continuity program. A subgroup meeting was held on the last meeting day because we didn’t know what was going to happen.
There has not been a formal response to the first recommendation. We should hold off on this until after Ray Byrnes gives his briefing. DOI is stepping up to a leadership role in Land Remote Sensing and collecting and defining user requirements.
Second recommendation required the Secretary, Department of the Interior to become involved with NASA.
Two things were being weighed in the process. One thing, Landsat has had fits and starts because of shifting from one program to another. Can we provide a long-term solution so we don’t always have a problem funding the next satellite? Second, look at weather satellites as being around a long time. Make sure there is not a significant gap in data that would occur. Could a Landsat sensor be put on the satellite? On one side, the NPOESS satellites are always going to be up and Landsat could be involved with them for a long time.
Landsat on NPOESS Briefing– John Cunningham (Attachment B)
John Cunningham, heads the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Interagency Program Office, and was invited by David Jones to brief the Committee on NPOESS. John works with Stanley Schneider at NOAA
Briefing was on Landsat data continuity strategy. (Attachment A) Background of Landsat was covered. Following are points made and other comments:
-Landsat on NPOESS will help with the understanding of current data.
-Interagency Working Group – NASA, NOAA, USGS, and non-government organizations (NGO) are working together. The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) fell apart because of cost. The NPOESS strategy will be justified through the normal budget process.
-How locked in is the money for the out years? Landsat will be on the C1 platform. It is as locked in as anything is. It came out in the President’s budget through the 5-year planning cycle. Department of Commerce and DOI is as assured as Department of Commerce’s money.
-It would be a really good thing to say that you have picked a solution that all three Government sponsors should stick to the decision.
-Congress has not yet weighed in on this proposal. USGS may need help in the Congressional process. We need USGS, NOAA, and NASA.
-Everything in the NPOESS is related to Environmental Data Records (EDR) individual data requirements.
-The integrated program office is working to do a lot of things together. Historically they are doing atmosphere and water. This partner program is totally different than any tried before.
-Landsat is outside of the EDR environment.
-A concern: each agency at one time or another as been responsible for Landsat and have failed to champion it. Who is going to do it now? Landsat is very visible in the structure of NOAA.
-Another view is that, at this point, any Committee that can influence decisions does not represent the land element of NPOESS. USDA the largest user of the data is not a part of the program. This is a real concern because those people who are going to have to live with the data are not part of the decision making. There is no real time demand on the Landsat satellite. There is concern that the data from Landsat will be impeded because of unknown factors.
-Landsat will be on C1 (2010) and C4.
-So, it will be about 2011 before acceptable data is available. We will miss the beginning of the 2011 growing season.
-Mission life is 7 years. Critical element is getting the Bus design. There is a lot more downside risk than upside.
-Design of the Operational Land Imager (OLI) - NASA has been competing it. It is clear that it is ready now for compatibility.
-Are there issues on the integration of information?
-Is OLI a part of the discussion? What is being reflected is that we would like to have more information on what we are interested in.
-NPOESS is basically different than any other system that has been built. SafetyNet Receptor is trademarked (just the name). 15 sites around the world that data will come down to (un-manned) and back to U.S. via fiber optics. This will functionally change the reception of data by international collaborators. They will not get the data; they will have to get the information from EROS. Is the existing model being tracked with the planned system? Landsat is part of the SafetyNet Receptor.
-USGS is responsible for working with the LTWG and LGSOWG people.
-Data collection will come to EROS and then we have to figure out how to handle the data. In terms of the Archive this will change the amount of data going into the Archive.
-What is the justification to put the Landsat on this platform? Is this information available to the public? ACTION: Jerry Nelson will find out information on cost savings of using NPOESS and not using NPOESS (trade studies).
-This makes beautiful and bureaucratic sense for the program but it means nothing for Landsat. This is incredible.
-Look at the international partnership interest. This information would be of great interest to the community. Disappointed that we couldn’t do what we have always done and not working with our international partners and the impact.
-Talk was on NPOESS data not Landsat. EROS is a receptor of data from NPOESS.
-Satellites are not orbit designed. Any satellite can fly any mission.
-Backup plan is Svalbard. TIDRSS will be a backup.
-Many of NPOESS sites are in places that we already have. This is for real time data.
-Changes since Landsat award: Visible/Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), Conical Scanning Microwave Imager/Sounder (CMIS), Sp;ace Environment Sensor Suite (SESS), (Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT), Aerosol Polarimeter Sensor (APS).
-If there is a failure on C1 can the same Landsat instrument be put on C2? Yes, but they won’t be delivered at the same time. Who makes these decisions? Weather data will take precedence.
-This Committee should be setting the reconfiguration and priorities on this next launch. Potential recommendation on launch and operation plan – future discussion,
-One big problem is the jitter.
The Committee was interested only in the gap and requested the speaker to move to that discussion.
-By putting the Landsat on an operational system it will take it out of the continual fight for funding. People are looking at data continuity (NOAA is not involved but others are) will use LDCM as a threshold.
-USGS is getting close to a couple of recommendations that we want to bring before the Committee.
-The reality is that we need a closer involvement with international partners.
-NPOESS is not the answer to data continuity.
-Two organizations, MAPPS and ASPRS sent a memo to Dr. Marburger (Attachment C).
-Everyone knows the gap will occur. We need to have an answer. We have a problem because no one champions Landsat and having 3 agencies (NASA, NOAA, USGS) doesn’t solve the problem.
-Per Cunningham, this group/committee has resulted in many agencies talking about it and taking this matter seriously.
Discussion and Comments Following the NPOESS Briefing
-It was the right decision to solve the NOAA problem. But still need a gap filler.
-The design is good and gives Landsat a home. But our biggest concern is that it there will be a gap.
-It is important, lots of discussion in the science community. We have to focus on the gap problem. We know that 16/18 days are not adequate repeat coverage. We should be looking at the NPOESS as the standard by which we judged other programs. We should start looking now at cheaper satellites that would fill the gap.
-We need to look to the future and we could probably have something in the private world in 4 years. We are beating a dead horse and that is unacceptable. We, as a country and a nation, have an obligation to ourselves to deal in an active way with the decision. We are trying to figure out how to get this into writing.
-Ray Byrnes will be talking about the new National Space Policy that assigns responsibility and actions for establishing a recommendation for USGS and NOAA into the budget process.
-The SafetyNet Receptor – OLI – Data will go to EROS only; it will not go to NOAA.
-Will we see a significant increase in the demand of data from EROS that will be turned around quicker than it is today? If we want to turn that system around in a day what kind of demand does that put on EROS and what will it take to have EROS fill the data request? We have to make sure that funds are available for EROS to turn around the data in a timely fashion.
-NOAA is not in the business of archiving.
-NPOESS is not going well and if its launch is delayed, Landsat will be blamed.
-What foreign partners can we work with and where do we get the money to fill a 5-year gap?
-Landsat will be a second-class system. If USGS is going to be a player they should be at the table and be treated equally; they are not.
-USGS got invited to the table a little late.
-Land data belongs to the USGS.
-There is a cost associated with the change of architecture. USGS needs to start to program the change in architecture.
-Today there is funding to preserve the Archive. We have never had funding to distribute the Archive. We started working with AmericaView. We have never gained the confidence that the data should be free. We need to provide this data free. It needs to be readily available and quickly. This data should be going out as the weather data does.
Toward an Operational Land Remote Sensing System of Systems – Ray Byrnes (Attachment D)
There are some things that are positive.
On the policy front, the Administration and Congress has recognized the USGS role in land remote sensing. On the program side, we get 20 years of data out of NPOESS. In terms of looking at the next few years, we will talk about the data gap approach we are taking. We have to struggle through to NPOESS. We cannot replace the Landsat data stream. There is nothing out there.
For at least a year or more, the Government agencies have been working on a new direction. Several agencies have been working on their role in the space policy. DOI should come out with a defined leadership role in Land Remote Sensing. Those with long term needs for the data need to get off the dime and work on this. We have asked for help to be in charge. Now we are in charge and we need to step up. The National Space Policy should be out soon. We are in a great position to determine our own future.
Who will decide the outcome if there is a conflict in the requirements between DoD and USGS? DoD thought Landsat data should have evolved to 10m data. DoD has not stepped up to help with the gap filler.
The next years are going to be changing and frustrating. USGS is at the point where you will not see the civil agencies or those that once came forward offering extra money. We are going forward in the hope that NPOESS will work.
Charge the Committee to keep the DOI honest.
Discussion and Comments
-Don’t see that DOI is an equal player at this time and if they do have a large mission they need to be an equal player. Determine if you want to be an equal player and then how.
-Need to explore the Archive Committee role and responsibilities in light of the new responsibilities of the DOI General Requirements.
-The USGS budget is really short in Land Remote Sensing. Will you grow?
-The DOI is going to have a significant new role that has a consequence to the Committee. The Committee should think about their role in supporting the DOI role.
-We will have $7.45 million to get moving on a current system. Right now the Administration and Congress are happy that we have a way forward. We will probably need help in 2006. Finding the money in DOI is very difficult.
-Don’t buy the argument that money can’t be found. The DOI Secretary has a large budget and has discretion of a great deal of it. Until the past couple of years our issues weren’t even on her agenda. She is fighting battles with NPS, FS, and BIA.
-It is not clear that this isn’t a part of the Secretary’s overall budget request.
-This is not an earmark – decided by Congress with no new money. This is a line item.
-Congratulate the Secretary on getting additional money but because of the small percentage needed, we recommend that she should be looking internally for support. When we figure out what Land Remote Sensing needs, we need to go back to Dr. Marburger and tell him. We need to work with various people and work on this. USDA is working with us.
-Data gap study to become GEOSS pilot project.
-Need to be part of the disaster charter. We are working on being a signatory.
-We need a 10-year road map.
-Is the DOI looking at where the budget should be for Land Remote Sensing activities? Is it a line item in the budget? No. Maybe the AAC should take this up and follow.
-We don’t know what happened to the Committee’s first recommendation to the Secretary.
-It would be a good time to ping the USGS when the Space Policy comes out and request funding of the budget. If you are planning in a bigger share of money it is easier to find a smaller amount of money.
-If you put her out front as a cabinet member leading this role is another question. She will be held accountable for it. This way she can hold others accountable. What does the Secretary want to be remembered for?
-The person in a position to help is the Secretary’s deputy – Lynn Scarlett. She recognizes the complexity of Landsat.