Status Report on the Data Processing Portion of EOSDIS

There has been strong concern voiced since the October IWG meeting related to several aspects of the ESDIS Project approach to meeting the challenge of maximizing the benefits that can be achieved within the restricted resources anticipated over the next few years. Much of the concern is apparently based on an incomplete understanding of what has been proposed, including the amount of latitude anticipated in negotiations with instrument teams.

"Option A+," presented to the EOS Investigators Working Group (IWG), is the name given to the compromise solution negotiated between Goddard and the Office of Earth Science (Code Y at HQ) balancing the "Option A," which was within budgetary guidelines, and "Option C," which implemented all the EOSDIS goals and requirements but was unaffordable. The data processing and distribution allotment works out to a bit more than one third of the EOSDIS budget, with the remainder taken by flight operations activities, getting data to the ground and between ground sites, and DAAC operations. The budget concerns relate to the fiscal years from 1999 to 2003, with the next two years requiring immediate attention. ESDIS is now focusing on putting together a viable system that supports getting data to the users as soon as possible, without overly reducing functionality. Some planned hardware capacity has been reduced, but the system architecture provides for expansion; if resources become available in the future, hardware will be less expensive to augment than functionality. Nearly $30 million (out of $138 million total savings through FY '03) has been identified in capacity reductions, including lowering processing and distribution capability, and archiving Levels 1 and 2 data for only six months. The "six month rolling archive" has caused quite a bit of the concern mentioned above, along with the process of involving PI teams in data production activities.

We have been holding meetings (euphemistically called "1-on-1's) with individual instrument teams since early November to address these concerns and to explore the impact of the A+ option on the teams' operations. These generally involve representation from ESDIS, ECS, the instrument team, the appropriate DAAC(s), and the mission project scientist(s), and give us the opportunity to understand the instrument teams' data use so decisions can be tailored to their needs. For example, while the "rolling archive" was used across the board by ESDIS for costing purposes, the actual implementation is negotiable if a team can come up with other ways to save comparable money, or if the implementation is not viable. (The suggestion for the six- months limit was originally made because many folks thought that the prime interest in much of the data would be at Level 3.) Another major goal related to PI processing is for both sides to understand the other's assumptions used in preparing estimates for data processing, and to ensure that both the instrument teams and ESDIS are using the same assumptions and ground rules. The teams are shown detailed plans for purchasing equipment to meet their needs by year, as well as a detailed description of the hardware that is available today at each site for their use. At this point, it appears that none of the A+ reductions impact AM-1 instruments in the first year after a July launch. Several teams expressed a desire to see more detailed information on which to base their data processing proposal, and ESDIS has either given this to them, or is in the process of preparing it.

Based on these and other discussions, the status for the missions/ instruments is as follows:

• Landsat 7 has not been affected by the A+ budget option.

• ASTER has no Level 3 products; the Level 1 is processed in Japan, and most of Level 2 is produced on demand. Therefore, ESDIS plans to keep all the ASTER data. ASTER data will be processed and archived at the EDC DAAC.
• MISR has no defined Level 3 products as yet, and ESDIS plans to keep all MISR data. MISR data will be produced and archived at the Langley DAAC.
• MODIS has at least two versions of Level 1 data; one of these will be maintained. Level 2 is still under discussion. MODIS Level 1 data will be produced at the Goddard DAAC, and the MODIS team will produce Levels 2 and above. The data will be made available through the Goddard, EDC, and NSIDC DAACs.
• The CERES Instrument Team will produce their data using the TRMM system at the Langley DAAC, and their data will be archived at the DAAC using ECS. We have not yet held a "1-on-1" with the CERES team.

• MOPITT plans to process outside of ECS for six-to-twelve months after launch, then migrate their processing into the ECS at the Langley DAAC. Their data will be available through the Langley DAAC under both modes.
• The AIRS team is studying the possibility of doing their own data processing and will be preparing a proposal. Archiving and distribution will be done via the GSFC DAAC.
• AMSR is preparing a proposal for doing their processing outside of ECS. Archiving and distribution will be done via the NSIDC DAAC
• The GLAS Instrument Team plans to process outside of ECS. Their data will be available through the NSDIC DAAC.

We plan to complete this round of "1-on-1's with the instrument teams for AM, PM, and CHEM early in the new year. The Data Panel, under the lead of Dave Emmitt, is contacting EOS IDS investigators to discuss the impacts of the A+ option from their perspective. Comments and thoughts from the DAAC user working groups are being solicited by Bruce Barkstrom through the offices of Lin Chambers of the Langley DAAC User Working Group.