--G. Bryan Bailey, gbbailey@edcserver1.cr.usgs.gov Earth Resources Observation System (EROS) Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Recognizing the growing importance of effective and timely interaction between the DAACs and the Instrument Teams they primarily support, the Land Processes DAAC Science Advisory Panel implemented a new meeting format for its April 1997 meeting. The Panel held its regular meeting at the USGS EROS Data Center (EDC) on April 23 and 24, but that two-day meeting was preceded by a one-day meeting devoted to addressing topics and issues of importance to the DAACÍs support of and interaction with the ASTER, MODIS, and Landsat-7 Instrument Teams. That meeting, dubbed "Instrument Team Day," consisted of a morning plenary session where "across instrument" topics were discussed and afternoon concurrent sessions where instrument-specific topics were addressed.
Attendance at Instrument Team Day was optional for Panel members not associated with one of the three instrument teams. Panel members attending the meeting were Chris Justice (Panel Co-Chair and MODIS rep.), Darrel Williams (Landsat-7 rep.), Simon Hook (ASTER alt. rep.), Bryan Bailey (Panel Co-Chair), and Tom Kalvelage (DAAC Sys. Eng.). Also attending were several other MODIS Team associates, numerous LPDAAC staff, as well as staff from NASA HQ, the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project, and the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Core System (ECS) Contractor.
The plenary session included presentations by DAAC Manager Lyn Oleson on the status and plans for AM-1 and Landsat-7 operations at the LPDAAC, overviews by Instrument Team representatives on their team's Emergency Back-up Plans, and a summary of the activities and plans of the Science Working Group for the AM Platform (SWAMP) Ground Control Point (GCP) Working Group by LPDAAC Scientist, Bryan Bailey.
Oleson presented a chart of the key release B milestones for the Pre-release B Testbed, B.0, and B.1. He then summarized the status of activities as it relates specifically to the Pre-release B Testbed and to B.0. Oleson also pointed out certain B.0 functional limitations. He closed his presentation by noting both some positive aspects about the way things are going and some remaining concerns the DAAC has with Release B plans. In their summaries of Emergency Back-up Plans that have been developed, each team emphasized the need to ensure that acquired data are saved and maintained for later processing, while at the same time providing enough processing throughput to meet instrument team calibration and system and product verification requirements. Also, each instrument team would like to have an assortment of data and product samples easily accessible for use by the general user community shortly after launch. In each case, the Emergency Back-up Plan described reflects a mere shadow of the full-up production and distribution plans intended for MODIS, ASTER, and Landsat-7 data.
Bryan Bailey reported that the SWAMP GCP Working Group has defined a consolidated strategy for minimizing duplication of effort while providing GCPs needed to meet the geometric calibration requirements of ASTER, MODIS, MISR, and Landsat-7. Specific areas where GCPs will be established have been identified, as have most of the source data and information required for base imagery and positional information. The Working Group will meet at EDC in June to finish as much of the remaining work as possible and to work on a final report/proposal that will recommend a course of action for getting the required GCPs produced.
Concurrent Instrument Team/DAAC staff meetings were held in the afternoon of Instrument Team Day. Later in the afternoon, the groups returned to a plenary session at which time the instrument team representatives to the Science Advisory Panel reported on the discussions and results of their specific session.
Simon Hook reported on the ASTER session. He noted that cooperation with the DAAC has been excellent and that there are no particular areas of major concern. Hook reviewed the status of various activities being carried out in cooperation with the DAAC, including the expedited data (Level 1) processing capability that will be at the DAAC; the ASTER Digital Elevation Model (DEM) standard data product software procurement; Quality Assurance (QA) plans and procedures; and Version 1 Science Software Integration and Test (SSI&T).
Darrel Williams reported that much of the Landsat-7 session addressed concerns about lack of progress on interagency agreements needed to ensure success of the Landsat-7 Program. An action to draft a letter expressing these concerns and providing appropriate recommendations was taken by the group. Other issues addressed were Level 1 QA and recent policy decisions that would severely limit access to Level 1 data by the general science user community.
Chris Justice reported that the spirited discussions which characterized the MODIS session resulted in significant progress being made. He noted that the LPDAAC has been frustrated with the lack of information they receive from MODIS and others, and MODIS is frustrated from the lack of attention they feel they are getting from the LPDAAC. Several actions were taken to improve cooperation and progress on various fronts. Also discussed were a variety of QA topics and issues. Actions were taken to better define QA procedures, roles, and responsibilities.
Attending the regular meeting of the LPDAAC Science Advisory Panel held on April 23 and 24 were panel members Dave Skole, Jim Merchant, Darrel Williams, Diane Evans, Chris Justice, Simon Hook, Tom Kalvelage, and Bryan Bailey, as well as participants and interested observers from EDC, NASA, the MODIS Instrument Team, and ECS. Panel Co-Chairman, Chris Justice, opened the meeting by noting the change in format of the meeting and focus of the agenda, as it relates to the emphasis being placed on areas where the DAAC believes it most needs the advice and counsel of the Panel.
Agenda item number one was to review the status of actions items from the November 1996 Panel meeting. The DAAC had distributed status summaries of action items not included on the current meeting agenda as separate discussion topics, and these summaries facilitated and expedited discussion. Notable among the discussions were those related to an action for the DAAC to write a status report on high-speed-network user models. The DAAC reported on its activities with DOD, the MODIS Science Team, and others relating to high-speed network development. However, a much clearer understanding is needed about EOSDIS-wide progress in network development. The Panel expressed concern that important network links between DAACs and between the DAACs and the users will not be sufficient to carry expected volumes of data at the necessary high transfer rates. Additional actions aimed at determining the network outlook and promoting progress in development were assigned by the Panel.
DAAC Manager, Lyn Oleson, led a discussion on assessing the LPDAAC user community needs, particularly as they relate to implications for the EOS AM-1 time frame. In its efforts to reconcile user community demands on the system with anticipated system resources and capacities, the DAAC will be developing end-to-end product generation and distribution scenarios on a product-by-product basis using product information compiled by the DAAC and the results of a user survey. Oleson also reported on current expectations regarding Version 0 systems and data in the post-launch time frame.
Tom Holm, EDC Program Manager for the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive, presented a summary of Landsat data production at the EROS Data Center, particularly by the National Landsat Archive Production System (NLAPS). Landsat data production is not a DAAC activity, currently, but it is of interest to the Panel because the DAAC will have Landsat-7 product generation and distribution responsibilities. It also is of interest because of requirements by users for inexpensive access to existing Landsat data.
John Dwyer reported on progress and plans being made toward ensuring DAAC User Services preparedness for the AM-1 time frame. He reviewed staffing plans, as well as current activities that DAAC User Services staff are involved with, including Version 0 data distribution, outreach activities, and participation in the EOSDIS User Services Working Group. Dwyer provided Panel members with copies of tabulated results from the recent LPDAAC User Services Survey.
Lyn Oleson presented an assessment of ECS readiness for AM-1 and Landsat-7 launches. He showed a master milestone chart that placed key milestones for testbed, B.0, B.1, and emergency back-up activities in context with the projected launches. He also commented on data ingest, data processing, and data distribution readiness. Concerns noted by Oleson included the facts that some production and distribution systems will be shared between instruments, and that measurements used in system allocation may not be applicable in practice due to requirements variations. Capacity is a big concern, he said, and the next step is to check the numbers various people are using to get a better handle on how close projected capacities will come to meeting identified requirements. Oleson told the Panel the DAAC will need their recommendations, as well as those of the Instrument Teams, in establishing priorities related to user categorization and data distribution.
A segment of the two-day LPDAAC Science Advisory Panel meeting was devoted to hearing reports from representatives of the Instrument Teams concerning the discussions and results of the concurrent Instrument Team meetings held one day earlier on "Instrument Team Day." Also presented was other relevant Instrument Team related information. Simon Hook summarized ASTERÍs science software delivery schedule, and he reviewed current validation plans. ASTER was delivered to Valley Forge some time ago. Chris Justice reported that the MODIS instrument had just completed thermal vacuum tests, and that progress was being made in the areas of software development, integration, and test. Specific important S/W milestones were cited by Justice, as were certain concerns. For example, Justice believes the B.0 LPDAAC system is significantly undersized and that MODIS needs increased support from the DAAC in a number of specific areas. He recommended that the DAAC implement a prototype operational L3 land cover product generation activity using 1-km AVHRR data. Darrel Williams reviewed the development status of both the Landsat ETM+ and the spacecraft. Instrument delays could force a launch delay. The Image Assessment System (IAS) completed a successful Critical Design Review (CDR) on April 8, and a Level-1 Product Generation System has been approved and is on a fast track development course for on-time delivery.
Vanessa Griffin provided a summary of the sequence and activities of various EOSDIS review panels that have operated over the past two years. She also overviewed the activities that NASA has undertaken in response to recommendations provided by the various panels. Griffin talked about the EOSDIS transition and the recertification process of the DAACs, and she reported that the Federation has been established.
The first day of the meeting concluded with a discussion session where Panel members raised issues of concern to them and offered recommendations to the DAAC. There was much discussion about future data sets, particularly as it relates to prioritization, capacity, and roles and responsibilities. Several Panel members expressed concern that work is being taken on by the DAAC when staffing and other resources already are burdened. The Panel encouraged the DAAC to pay particular attention to appropriate balance in preparation of next yearÍs work plan.
The second day of the meeting began with John Daucsavage, Land Processes DAAC ECS Engineering Liaison, taking Panel members and others on a tour of the new DAAC computer floor. Daucsavage explained the functions of, and provided other information about, the various new ECS-purchased hardware that recently has been installed at the DAAC.
In response to a previous action item, R.J. Thompson reported on the DAAC's plans for managing future NASA data sets, such as Smallsat Technology Initiative (SSTI) data, Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data, LightSAR data, and others. Those plans require additional clarification pending a meeting with NASA HQ staff scheduled for June. The fundamental issues involved relate to availability of funds to archive and distribute these future data and to potential impacts on other important DAAC requirements.
Lyn Oleson led a discussion of the "DAAC Activities Overview," which had been sent to Panel members prior to the meeting. That overview summarized highlights of DAAC operations and development activities during the past six months, and it provided a good lead-in to discussion of the DAAC's work plan for the final six months of FY 1997. In that regard, Oleson noted the DAAC's highest priority objectives for the remainder of the year in the areas of user assistance and outreach, data distribution, mission support, and engineering and development. The issue of data pricing policy again surfaced during these discussions in the context of concerns that "free data" may ultimately place prohibitive burdens on the DAACs and reduce service to the science community. Bill North indicated that V0 products, at least, will continue to be distributed "at no cost to the user."
Panel Co-Chairman, Chris Justice, led a wrap-up discussion of the meeting, including identifying issues to be addressed during transition from V0 to V1. He stressed that meeting user needs is critical. He pointed out that the Advisory Panel has a good relationship with the DAAC, which is responsive and committed, but the Panel needs to be more functional and members must be committed to participating in meetings. He commented that the pre-meeting package sent for Panel review worked well, the cross-instrument focus was good, and the Instrument Team Day is worth continuing. He said that while the DAAC at EDC is a good one, the goal is for it to be even better. He noted that there may be differences between what the DAAC would like to do and what it can do. Also, he said that partnerships are important, and they can be both formal and informal. The DAAC needs to view users as partners. He identified Panel priorities for the DAAC as: scoping and readiness; end-to-end operations planning; and user services.
Prior to adjourning, the Panel reviewed and listed its action items and set dates for its next meetings. The next meeting will be at EDC on September 9-11, 1997, and the following meeting will be February 3-5, 1998, probably at a less climatologically challenged site.