Harry's Notes from August 1998
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: harry@apl.washington.edu
To: asfuwg@juneau.gi.alaska.edu
Cc: sgoginen@hq.nasa.gov, vkaupp@images.alaska.edu
Subject: ASF science plan
Notes on the next Five-Year Science Plan for ASF
1. Audience and Scope
Ken Jezek noted:
"...the 1989 ASF Science Plan had a preface signed by Shelby Tilford
(then Director of the Earth Science Division). That document essentially
had both the Science White paper stuff and some sketchy elements of a
science plan. So, I think we should be aiming for similar endorsement
by NASA for the new documents."
Yes. The science plan should be written for potential users of SAR data
and for NASA program managers, but it also needs to be endorsed or reviewed
by NASA as it evolves, lest we end up with a situation like the White Paper
in which the final product is not to their liking.
The White Paper, in either its existing form or a revised version, gives
the motivation for why we need SAR, etc. Therefore the science plan can
concentrate on the "how", "what", and "when" questions. For example, the
White Paper tells us why we should monitor ice sheets; the science plan
should include requirements for how frequently interferometric observations
of ice sheets are needed.
2. Thoughts from Ben
* Disciplines need to request input and review from larger community -
to help this, ASF should provide list of users by discipline and perhaps
Prasad and UWG can provide suggestions.
* Should include as appendix estimates of minutes per day of data required,
plus preferred modes.
* Should consider implementation of additional US ground stations (Svalbard,
lower 48) and distributed PI processing with direct access to ASF archives.
3. Outlines
The ASF Science Plan from 1989 was written by the Prelaunch Science
Working Team (PSWT). The outline is as follows.
Preface by Shelby Tilford, NASA HQ
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Science Objectives
sea ice, open ocean, glaciology, geology, hydrology, ecosystems,
remote sensing science, global change, applications demonstrations
3. Mission Descriptions
ERS-1, JERS-1, RADARSAT
4. The Alaska SAR Facility
background, science requirements for the facility
5. Science Opportunities
sea ice, open ocean, glaciology, geology, hydrology, ecosystems,
remote sensing science, global change, applications demonstrations
6. SAR Data Products Needed in Science Investigations
sea ice, open ocean, glaciology, geology, hydrology, ecosystems,
remote sensing science, applications demonstrations
7. Generation of Data Products for ASF Studies
SAR products, geophysical products to be generated at ASF,
geophysical image analysis at ASF, geophysical analysis and
processing to be done at PI institutions
8. Prelaunch Research Required for ASF Science Program
PSWT panels, ice and oceans, land processes, calibration,
aircraft SAR acquisition and analysis
9. Conclusions
PSWT recommendations
References
Appendix A: System Requirements
Appendix B: System Descriptions
This plan was written in anticipation of the launches of ERS-1, JERS-1, and
RADARSAT, before ASF had collected a single byte of data. The main body of
the plan is 72 pages long, but 40 of those pages are in Section 5, which is
analogous to our White Paper. So I think our science plan can be more concise.
Of course the new science plan should include descriptions of past, present,
and future SAR sensors handled by ASF, as well as other updates. Here is a
short version of Verne's Strawman Outline from May 1998 (we all received
copies of the full 31-page document).
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. The ASF and the UAF
history, ASF current functionality, science requirements for an
integrated facility, the UAF picture, institutions which represent
users of ASF SAR data
3. Mission Descriptions
long-term strategic plan for SAR at ASF
NASA programs (Earth Science Enterprise, EOS, etc)
NOAA operational programs (operational oceanography, NIC)
international missions (ERS, JERS, RADARSAT, etc)
4. Science Objectives and Research Opportunities
scientific research (global change, marine sciences, glaciology,
earth sciences, land cover and ecosystem sciences, hydrology)
applications research (operational applications, pathfinder products,
educational outreach, value-added products and technology transfer)
remote sensing research (interferometry, SAR processing, terrain
correction and mosaicking, multispectral data analysis)
5. Strategic Development at ASF
technical aspects
programmatic aspects
data acquisition (mining the data archives, using SAR in
multispectral studies, RADARSAT allocation considerations,
new missions support)
processing developments and improvements (ASP and SPS, Level 0)
mass storage system considerations
6. User Community Needs
established programs (RGPS, RAMP, ADRO, Global Forest Mapping)
anticipated programs (Antarctic NRA)
proposed new standard products
proposed new user tools
calibration and validation of SAR products
7. Five Year Timeline for ASF Science Plan
ASF statement of work
Appendix A: The UAF Picture (from ADVAL to SALRM)
Appendix B: International Missions / Technical Specifications
Appendix C: ASF Statement of Work
This outline has some good details but I think we should stick to the order
(more or less) of the first outline, in which science objectives and mission
descriptions precede the discussion of ASF as a data center. Thus I propose
something like this.
Scientific Objectives
sea ice, glaciology, etc
Mission Descriptions
past and current (ERS-1, ERS-2, JERS-1, RADARSAT-1)
future (ENVISAT-1, RADARSAT-2, LightSAR, ALOS)
Data Requirements to Achieve Scientific Objectives
by application
by mission
The Alaska SAR Facility
brief history/background
current data archive and processing capability
currently supported programs (RGPS, RAMP, individual PIs, etc)
anticipated programs
anticipated cal/val activities
upgrades required to support anticipated programs and data needs
out-of-mask data acquisition
processing capability
ordering and distribution of data
user tools
The Future of ASF
distributed PI processing
relationship with other ground stations, existing and planned
connections with other local institutions (GI, IARC, etc)
recommendations of the ASFUWG
timeline
Clearly this outline is lacking in detail but our job is to shape it
and fill it in. Suggestions and help are welcome.
