ASF User Working Group Meeting

Meeting Summary

ASF has been doing well in terms of delivering data to users. ASF received praise from NOAA/NIC, from the JPL/RGPS team, and from level-zero users. Processing of data for MAMM is going well. The group felt that ASF is operating better now than it has for several years.

There was much discussion about the future of ASF. The current five-year contract ends in March 2003. In the absence of U.S. participation in future SAR missions, the ASF budget is expected to decline, with ASF becoming just a data archive. NASA would continue to support ASF and the needs of the data users through maintenance of the archive and servicing of data requests. If ASF wants to sustain a higher level of funding then it must find the means to do so, for example through selling its services to government or commercial interests.

The director of ASF resigned at the end of September, at about the same time that a new deputy director was hired. The search for a new director must be a top priority at ASF. With a target date of March 2002 for the new director to take over, the next meeting of the User Working Group (UWG) should be in late spring or summer, 2002, in Fairbanks.

Top Priority Items

• ASF should concentrate on finding a permanent director. Put out an announcement and job description as soon as possible. While it may be appropriate to seek an interim director, ASF should not spend too much time and energy on a temporary solution.

• ASF should send a representative to the IICWG (International Ice Charting Working Group) meeting in Tromso on November 13-16. Participants at the meeting will include both customers (e.g. NOAA/NIC) and suppliers (EMMA and SARCOM) of SAR data. NOAA/NIC plans to buy 8 to 10 thousand scenes / year of RADARSAT-2 and ENVISAT ASAR imagery. This is a chance for ASF to learn about international arrangements for the purchase and sale of SAR data, make contacts, and present its capabilities for data reception and processing. Contact: Cheryl Bertoia.

Other Recommendations and Notes

• Investigate business models that will position ASF to acquire new SAR missions, including continued pursuit of the ALOS data node for the Americas. Cheryl volunteered to help with contacts at various ground stations.
  Action: Waleed will look into what ASF can do (legally) to pursue future missions.

• Investigate the operating model of NSIDC, in which scientists are on the DAAC staff. This would help to promote the use of SAR imagery and derived products, and forge a closer relationship between the DAAC and the data users. Ted Scambos volunteered to provide information and be a link to NSIDC.

• A-PRIME is the ASF PRocessing and Information Management Enhancement project. A high-level Operational Concept document was circulated before the meeting. The UWG recommends that data users be included in the review process.
  Action: Waleed will find out from Bill Potter the timetable for technical reviews of A-PRIME and who is participating.

• ASF should fix the image quality problems associated with RADARSAT ScanSAR Wide B (SWB), including the AGC (automatic gain control) problem. User contacts: Ron Kwok and Frank Monaldo.

• ASF should calibrate other RADARSAT beams, such as SNA, SNB, SWA, and the wide beams.
  Action: Nettie will suggest the order in which beams should be calibrated.

• RADARSAT-1 acquired fine-beam SAR data of Greenland as part of the MAMM background mission from September 2000 to January 2001 (six cycles). Data from this Canadian Interferometric Mission (CIM) are archived at the Tromso, Dera, Gatineau, and Prince Albert stations. NASA has negotiated a deal with CSA to pay the transcription fees and have the data shipped to ASF.
  Question for ASF: When will these data be available?

• Data Acquisition Requests (DARs) from NIC, NOAA, RGPS, and MAMM enjoy success rates greater than 90%, while DARs from individual investigators (ADRO-2, other AO, unsolicited) have success rates from 68% to 87%.
  Action: ASF should investigate the reasons for this discrepancy. For example: Do certain individuals tend to make requests that are difficult to satisfy and therefore drive up the failure rate for the category as a whole? Are failed requests mainly due to conflicts with RSI? When a user's request fails due to a conflict, the request that took priority may still yield useful data for the user. Is this often the case?

• To follow up on the last point, it's possible that acquisitions could be coordinated and conflicts reduced if DARs could be posted on the web. However, this may run afoul of CSA and RSI policy, and raises privacy questions. Some options might include: using a password-protected site; posting the nominal acquisition plan without indicating who requested what; only posting DARs from users who have given permission.
  Question for UWG: Is this important enough for NASA/ASF to look into it?

• In spring 2001 the National Research Council (NRC) released a report called "Enhancing NASA's Contribution to Polar Science", in which several recommendations were made on improving the effectiveness of DAACs.
  Question for ASF: What does ASF plan to do to address the issues and recommendations in the NRC report?

• In connection with the NRC report, we talked about posting selected browse images on the ASF web site for educational purposes and to stimulate interest in SAR. Under the terms of the international MOUs, what exactly can be posted with unrestricted access?
  Action: Waleed will find out the guidelines at the ISC meeting.

• NASA participation in RADARSAT-2 is off the table because it's a commercial endeavor. However, RADARSAT-3 is on the horizon, with a possible launch in 2005 and a tandem mission with RADARSAT-2. CSA is interested in NASA participation in RADARSAT-3. We recommend that NASA pursue involvement with RADARSAT-3, while the mission is still on the drawing board.

• NASA owns the McMurdo receiving station but NSF pays the personnel to operate it, with RADARSAT-1 providing the budget justification. When RADARSAT-1 goes away, NSF will need a reason to continue paying those costs. Future use of McMurdo need not be limited to SAR. We recommend that NASA and NSF find a way to keep the McMurdo station in operation.

• We talked about pursuing the use of the Svalbard receiving station, because the arctic coverage is better than that of the Tromso station. Ben "volunteered" to write up a paragraph describing the advantages of Svalbard.

• ASF and NSIDC are working together on distribution of the 25-meter RAMP data, now available on DVD. Web pages are being developed.

• Ben made a pitch for calibration and level-one production of Seasat SAR images. The data could be useful in conjunction with future L-band missions (e.g. PALSAR, ECHO). See also Ben's Scientific Rationale for Seasat SAR Processing (1999). The group agreed that the data could be valuable but did not make a recommendation about devoting resources at this time.

• It was noted that some items on the ASF web site are out-of-date and the site is in need of renovation. ASF is in the process of hiring a new web developer. The position has been vacant for some time.

• UWG membership currently stands at 18. Jon Ranson has indicated his intention to step down, and one or two others are due for retirement, so our active ranks are more like 15 or 16. Ten members attended this meeting, four of whom are new to the group. There was some discussion about whether the group is too big, and whether it needs non-scientists (e.g. lawyers, business managers) in order to provide appropriate guidance to ASF. Harry believes that the size is fine, given that not everyone can attend every meeting. (Note that 12 PoDAG members attended their last meeting). As for the composition, it's up to ASF and NASA to decide whether the group should only consist of data users (as it does now) or whether it should function more as a board of directors with a broader range of knowledge.

Attendance

Waleed Abdalati		NASA HQ 	wabdalat@hq.nasa.gov
Cheryl Bertoia		NIC/NOAA	cheryl.bertoia@noaa.gov
Jim Conner		ASF		jconner@asf.alaska.edu
Craig Dobson		NASA HQ		cdobson@hq.nasa.gov
Mark Fahnestock		U Maryland	mark@essic.umd.edu
Cathy Geiger		U Delaware 	cgeiger@udel.edu
Ben Holt		JPL 		ben.holt@jpl.nasa.gov
Verne Kaupp		formerly ASF
Ron Kwok		JPL 		ron.kwok@jpl.nasa.gov
Nettie LaBelle-Hamer	ASF 		nettie@asf.alaska.edu
Carel Lane		ASF		clane@asf.alaska.edu
Larry Ledlow		ASF		lledlow@asf.alaska.edu
Jeff Lipscomb		ASF		jlipscom@asf.alaska.edu
Jamie Marschner		ASF		jmarschn@asf.alaska.edu
Frank Monaldo		APL/JHU		Frank_Monaldo@jhuapl.edu
Bill Pichel		NOAA/NESDIS	William.G.Pichel@noaa.gov
Ted Scambos		NSIDC		teds@icehouse.colorado.edu
Buck Sharpton		GI/UAF		buck.sharpton@gi.alaska.edu
Larry Smith		UCLA		lsmith@geog.ucla.edu
Roger Smith		GI/UAF		roger.smith@gi.alaska.edu
Harry Stern		PSC/UW		harry@apl.washington.edu