Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
WE2.L10 - NASA's Evolving Approaches to Maximizing Applications Return from our Earth Observing Satellites
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

WE2.L10 - NASA's Evolving Approaches to Maximizing Applications Return from our Earth Observing Satellites


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • As of Feb 2009, all historical data comes from EMS (no EDGRS annual report data for pre-2000) and OBPG data is added from the Ocean Color website statistics for FY04 through FY09. Prior years (FY00-FY2008) products distribution data sources cover the following data centers: ASF, EDC, GSFC, GHRC, PO.DAAC, ASDC, NSIDC, ORNL, SEDAC, including OBPG since FY2004, MODAPS since FY2006, and CDDIS since FY2009. All data are on FY boundaries. FY2010 data is cumulated per month for the following 11 data centers: ASF, EDC, GSFC, GHRC, PO.DAAC, ASDC, NSIDC, ORNL, MODAPS, SEDAC, and CDDIS with OBPG to be added at end of the fiscal year.
  • The left part of this chart covers the situation of the 1970s to early 1990s. The right-side covers the situation of the mid-1990s (again, remember we are talking about NASA’s Earth science data systems picture here – I don’t claim to represent a global picture)
  • Transcript

    • 1. From Requirements to Capabilities: NASA'S EVOLVING APPROACH TO MAXIMIZING APPLICATIONS RETURN FROM OUR EARTH OBSERVING SATELLITES Dr. Stephen Volz Associate Director for Flight Programs Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate
    • 2. Where was NASA Earth Science 10 years ago? ERBS UARS Topex/Poseidon TOMS ROSES Products Delivered FY1996 – FY2000 (in 1,000s)
    • 3. Where are we now?
    • 4. Completed the 2009 Senior Review
      • Science scores based on intrinsic science value of dataset, relevance to ESD science goals, and data product maturity.
      • Utility scores based on intrinsic value of data products, frequency and timeliness of use.
    • 5. The Afternoon or A-Train Constellation
      • The A-Train Constellation is a prime example of a successful multi-satellite constellation, combining measurements from 5 satellites and two space agencies (CNES & NASA)
      • Soon to have a 6 th added – Glory – in 2010
      • JAXA will be joining the A-Train with the GCOM-W1 satellite flying the AMSR-2 instrument (follow-on to AMSR-E which flies on the Aqua satellite)
      • OCO-2 will join them all in 2013
    • 6. Data Products Delivered: FY00 thru May 2010 ~8,000,000 Products in 2000 ~250,000,000 Products in 2009 >30X increase over 2000
    • 7.
      • Discipline/ mission specific data systems
      • Community-specific standards only
      • Data inter-use proved cumbersome
      • Improved access to heritage data
      • Cross-system search and order access via data interoperability model
      • Common distri-bution format (HDF); other formats also supported
      Evolution of Data System Capabilities <1990 Mid-1990s
      • Support for high data volumes
      • Integrated core plus coupled elements
      • Common data model
      • Expanded software tools and services
      • Options to support or interoperate with external data sources
      • Coexistence of hetero-geneous, distributed data providers / information partners
      • Minimal set of core standards
      • Support for community-specific standards
      • Reusable software
      • Service Oriented Architecture
      • On-line archives and cross-system service invocation
      • Ease of innovation and technology infusion
      Late 90s + Present to near future Lessons learned and information technology advances coupled with user working group and advisory council advice and ideas supports a continuously evolving data system with growing capabilities for the user community
    • 8. Phase C/D: Missions In Development
    • 9. ESD Missions in Development & Formulation Phase D Phase D Phase D Phase B Phase C Phase C Phase B Phase A GLORY Nov 2010 NPP Sep 2011 AQUARIUS Late 2010 (TBR) LDCM Dec 2012 SMAP Nov 2014 GPM Jul 2013 Nov 2014 ICESat-2 Oct 2015 OCO-2 Feb 2013
    • 10. Mission Studies in Pre-Formulation
    • 11. ESD Missions in Pre-Formulation thru 2020 DESDynI Lidar & Radar 2017 SAGE III 2014 CLARREO-2 2020 CLARREO-1 2017 SWOT 2020 Phase A Pre Phase A Instrument Developments EV-I1 2015 EV-I2 2016 EV-I3 2017 EV-I4 2018 GMI#2 2013 GRACE FO 2016 PACE 2019 EV-2 2017 ASCENDS 2020
    • 12. Where are we going? The Challenge
      • In 2007 the US National Academy of Sciences provided a road map with measurements and mission priorities
      • The Decadal Survey also indicated that NASA needed to spend greater effort to enable the societal benefits that could be achieved from its orbiting observatories.
      • We have initiated our first DS missions with a focus on renewed focus on applications
    • 13. Project & Program Applications Assessments
      • In 2009 we started an assessment of how the operating and foundational NASA missions are achieving their potential, and what we (NASA and partner Agencies) can do to ensure they do achieve that potential
      • At the mission level NASA is conducting mission-focused applications development studies on the first two tiers of Decadal Survey missions
        • So far, applications workshops have been held for SMAP, HyspIRI, CLARREO, DESDynI, ACE, and GEO-CAPE
      • At the Program level, in February 2010, NASA convened a 3 day workshop together with many US Agencies and NGOs to understand the user perspective for our upcoming missions
        • This is second of what is to be a sustained activity
        • Follow-up workshop is planned for October 2010
    • 14. February 2010 Workshop Findings for NASA
      • Strategic
        • Accelerate use of NASA data for applications and societal benefit
        • Develop and maximize government, private, and academic partnerships
        • Organize around grand challenges in areas to be determined
        • Leverage Existing activities
      • Organizational
        • Integrate applications users into mission teams as early as possible
        • Conduct periodic user meetings and encourage more frequent interactions of subgroups and agency partners
        • Train the next generation
      • Data
        • Ensure data continuity
        • Improve infrastructure to provide access to high level data products
        • Improve infrastructure to provide rapid access to data
    • 15. Missions Distributed by NASA Flight Project Life Cycle 4 6 6 13 10 NASA : DESDynI CLARREO SWOT ASCENDS ACE GEO-CAPE HyspIRI GRACE FO PACE NASA/NOAA : QuikSCAT FO NASA : ICESat-2 SAGE III NASA/NOAA : Jason-3 JPSS-2 NASA : SMAP OCO-2 Venture EV-1 NASA/NOAA : TSIS CERES FM6 JPSS-1 NASA : NPP Glory Aquarius GPM LDCM NASA/NOAA : GOES-R/S
    • 16. Mission Requirements for Pre-Phase A
      • Headquarters
      • Approve a Formulation Authorization Document
      • Develop DRAFT Level 1 Requirements
      • Conduct Acquisition Strategy Planning Meeting
      • Technical Activities:
      • Develop and document preliminary mission concepts
      • Conduct internal Reviews
      • Conduct Mission Concept Review Project Planning, Costing and Scheduling
      • Develop and document a DRAFT Integrated Baseline, including:
        • High level WBS
        • Assessment of Technology Readiness Levels
        • Assessment of Infrastructure and Workforce needs
        • Identification of potential partnerships
        • Identification of conceptual acquisition strategies for proposed major procurements
      • KDP Readiness
      • Obtain KDP A Readiness products
      • Approval through the governing PMC
      • Development of Level 1 Science Requirements
      • Support development of preliminary mission concepts
      • Support the assessment of Technical Readiness Levels
      • Identify potential partnerships
      Areas for Mission Science Team Scope of Major Pre-Phase A Activities:
      • Initiate assessments of potential applied science returns
      • Caucus community and partner input
      • Support cost benefit analyses for possible requirements modifications to enable critical applications
      Areas for Applied Science Community
    • 17. Mission Requirements for Phase A
      • Headquarters
      • Establish Baseline Level 1 Requirements
      • Conduct Acquisition Strategy Meeting
      • Initiate Interagency and International Agreements
      • Technical Activities:
      • Develop preliminary system level requirements
      • Develop/document Baseline Mission Concept
      • Develop preliminary mission operations concept
      • Initiate technology developments
      • Develop initial orbital debris assessment
      • Conduct System Requirements Review
      • Conduct Mission Definition Review
      • Project Planning, Costing and Scheduling:
      • Prepare a preliminary Project Plan
      • Conduct required Integrated Baseline Reviews
      • Develop/document preliminary Integrated Baseline
      • Identify Export Controlled technical data
      • KDP Readiness:
      • Obtain KDP B Readiness products
      • Approval through the governing PMC
      • Concur with Level 1 Science Requirements
      • Support development of preliminary system-level requirements
      • Support development of mission baseline concept
      • Support Development of preliminary mission operation concept
      Areas for the Mission Science Team: Scope of Major Phase A Activities:
      • Refine applications feasibility studies
      • Participate in science team analysis of refined level 1 requirements
      • Support focused applications workshop
      Areas for Applied Science Community :
    • 18. Existing & Future NASA Missions
    • 19. NASA Flight Program Summary
    • 20. NASA Near Term Mission Implementation
      • We are working to develop a Program, not just fly individual missions, and are flying 1-2 missions every year well into the next decade
      2010: Glory ($450M) 2011: Aquarius & NPP ($1,300M) 2012: LDCM ($950M) 2013: GPM ($1,000M) Venture Mission Class calls – 2009, 2011, 2013, … Venture Instrument calls – 2011, 2012, 2013, … 2013: OCO-2 ($330M) 2014: SMAP & SAGE III ($900M) 2015: ICESat-2 ($750M) 2016: GRACE FO ($375M) 2017: DESDynI, CLARREO-1 & EV-2 ($2,300M) 2019: PACE ($900M) 2020: CLARREO-2, ASCENDS & SWOT ($1,300M)
      • Complete the foundational missions as planned
      • Conduct a series of competitive selections
      • Complete the DS 1 st Tier missions by 2017, and move out with DS 2 nd Tier and Climate Missions
    • 21. Conclusion
      • The NASA flight program invests ~$1B+/year in its flight missions
        • Satellite development, operation of missions, EOSDIS and other DACs, competed mission science teams
      • But our missions will always be focused on primary science, but are capable of returning so much more
      • It becomes a question of
      • We are looking for ways to redirect or refocus some small part of our design activities to ensure we will retain as much capability as we can, knowing what the communities want
      • We also are working with our partners to leverage their capabilities
            • Requirements vs. Capabilities
    • 22. How is NASA following through?
      • At the individual mission level we are:
        • Holding mission specific applications workshops
        • Adding partners to our Science Definition and science teams
        • Adding specific applications requirements to the Level 1 mission performance requirements
      • At the Program level we are:
        • Conducting cross disciplinary applications workshops
        • Encouraging greater coupling between airborne science, EV activities, R&A campaigns and applied sciences
      • At the Agency level we are:
        • Developing MOUs between Agencies to foster collaboration
        • Supporting GEO, GEOSS, CEOS and related international coordination activities on data standards