Agenda for WATER HM/SWOT Meeting

CNES HQ, Paris

1 February 2008

Click Here for PDF version of Agenda  (agenda draft date: February 1, 2008)

Click here for a post-meeting summary of discussions (MSWord Version)

Start at 9:00 am, 1 hour Lunch break, end ~5:30 pm

9:00 - 9:10:  Welcome, Meeting Goals

            Nelly Mognard

 

9:10 - 10:00: Updates

            CNES Programmatic Status and updates

                        Pascale Ultré-Guérard

            NASA/JPL updates

                        Eric Lindstrom, Tony Freeman, Jim Graf

            IIP WATER HM Proposal

                        Lee Fu  (Ernesto Rodriguez)

            Results of Washington D.C. Meeting October 29th & 30th, 2007

                        Doug Alsdorf

 

10:00 - 11:45: Risk Reduction Studies

Discussion led by Ernesto Rodriguez, Bruno Cugny

            -  Discussion of the document describing the risk-reduction studies

            -  Plan to coordinate the NASA funded studies with those of CNES

 

11:45 – 12:15: Division of Technology Amongst Partners

            Discussion led by Ernesto Rodriguez, Bruno Cugny, Tony Freeman

            -  Mission sharing between NASA and CNES

            -  ITAR controls:  technology and potential sharing arrangements.

            -  Technology sharing to lower overall mission costs.

 

12:15 – 13:15:  Lunch

 

13:15 – 15:15:  Science Questions Discussions

            Hydrology and oceanography science questions

                        Doug Alsdorf, (with some slides by Lee Fu), Pierre-Yves Le Traon, Alix Lombard, Jacques Verron

            Coastal zone questions          

                        Lee Fu (Yves Menard), Florent Lyard, Pierre de Mey

Hydrology “Virtual Mission” updates

                        Doug Alsdorf, Sylvain Biancamaria, Dennis Lettenmaier, Aaron Boone

            Wording and Prioritization of the Science Questions

Discussion led by Doug Alsdorf, Lee Fu, Yves Menard, Nelly Mognard

            Applications of WATER HM to hydrology and oceanography

                        Dennis Lettenmaier

 

15:15 – 15:30: Break

 

15:30 – 16:30: Mission Document

 Discussion led by Anny Cazenave and Nelly Mognard

 

16:30 – 17:30: Miscellaneous, Open Forum

            Doug Alsdorf, Lee Fu, Yves Menard, Nelly Mognard

            -  Oceanography Workshops, Ocean Sciences ASLO meeting, Future “Town Halls”

Agenda Details:

Welcome, Meeting goals (10 minutes): Nelly Mognard

1.     Updates (50 minutes):

a.  CNES HQ update Pascale Ultré-Guérard.  CNES continues to strongly endorse WATER HM as a key earth science mission.

b.  NASA HQ and JPL discussions Eric Lindstrom, Tony Freeman, Jim Graf. Ongoing discussions regarding the future of WATER HM have focused on risk reduction studies which are designed to allow the SWG to formulate the mission requirements (e.g., science questions, technology constraints, costs, launch, platform, etc.).  These discussions encourage the participation of CNES, JPL, and NASA with an expectation of modest funds from NASA HQ and JPL throughout 2008 (funding of ~$0.5M to $1.0M).

c.  IIP WATER HM Proposal Lee Fu.  JPL submitted a proposal to NASA’s IIP call to reduce risks related to the mission.

d.  Results of Washington D.C. Meeting October 29th & 30th, 2007: Doug Alsdorf.  The meeting summary is appended below and should be used for reference.  The meeting was not able to conclusively solve the key issues related to the science questions and risk reduction studies because the Air France strike limited participation.  We will use this CNES meeting to finalize the plans for prioritizing the science questions and ensuring that risk reduction studies are well formulated and timed to finish so that the mission is ready for the next step.

2.     Risk Reduction Studies (1.75 hours): Ernesto Rodriguez, Bruno Cugny

a.  We have already circulated a 5-page document describing these risk-reduction studies and we will further discuss these during the meeting.  This document is also appended below.  Ernesto Rodriguez

b.  We need to work on a plan that will coordinate the NASA funded studies with those of CNES.

c.  Oceanography Workshops: 1. Coastal altimetry (Feb 5-7); 2. Meso- and sub-mesoscale processes (tentatively April); 3. Coastal and internal tides (TBD).  The first one will be finalized in a couple of weeks (Ted Strub and Laury Miller are the leads, jointly funded by NOAA and NASA).  The second one is being planned (Lee Fu and Raffaele Ferarri are the leads, NASA funded).  The third one is being considered by Richard Ray who will take the lead.  Lee Fu

3.     Division of Technology Amongst Partners (0.5 hours) Ernesto Rodriguez, Bruno Cugny, Tony Freeman

a.  Launch vehicle costs in the U.S. are on the order of ~$100M whereas costs are much lower for non-U.S. rockets.  Thus, one goal of the technology sharing is to lower overall mission costs.

b.  ITAR controls will restrict some aspects of the technology and potential sharing arrangements.  During the development of the WatER proposal to ESA, some of these details were discussed.

c.  NASA HQ has made it clear that sharing missions is a priority (e.g., Alan Stern presentation at Fall 2007 AGU).

 

4.     Science Questions (2.0 hours):

a.  The Washington D.C. meeting Doug Alsdorf, Lee Fu. The meeting resulted in an articulation of some science questions and identification of the topmost hydrology question and topmost oceanography question.  The wording of these questions is important because these drive the risk reduction studies and hence the mission design.  For example, storage changes in lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands are straightforward to measure whereas discharge in rivers is more complex requiring assessment of the space and time sampling via data assimilation.  See meeting summary below for more details.

b.  Coastal Zone Questions: Lee Fu, Pierre De Mey, Florent Lyard. Presentation by Pierre de Mey, “Model errors in coastal regions and the relevance to the SWOT mission to significantly constrain the coastal ocean mesoscale and coastal current variability”

c.  Hydrology “Virtual Mission” updates Doug Alsdorf, Nelly Mognard, Dennis Lettenmaier, Aaron Boone

d.  Wording and Prioritization of the Science Questions: Discussion led by Doug Alsdorf, Lee Fu, Yves Menard, Nelly Mognard

e.  Applications of WATER HM to hydrology and oceanography: Dennis Lettenmaier

5.     Mission Document for CNES (1 hour): Anny Cazenave, Nelly Mognard

a.  CNES would like to have a ~50 page document characterizing the mission and the studies needed to ensure that we are ready to move into the next mission phase.  An outline of this document is appended below.

b.  We need to discuss the content of this document and its authors, responsible for making certain we meet the CNES deadlines.

6.     Miscellaneous, Open Forum (1 hour): Doug Alsdorf, Lee Fu, Yves Menard, Nelly Mognard

a.  Ocean Sciences ASLO meeting, Orlando Florida, March 5, 2008

b.  Future “Town Halls” to ensure community buy-in

c.  Doug has helped serve as a conduit for emails describing the risk reduction studies, but I want to make certain that our technology members are fully aware of and contribute to the discussions.  Hopefully we can designate a knowledgeable engineer or two who would be willing to lead these discussions.  An outgrowth of the CNES mission document might also be designated leaders for other aspects of the mission.

d.  Mission web page(s): Do we need a forum section where participants can exchange their thoughts or is email sufficient?

e.  Mission names: Several names have been affiliated with the mission including the following.  The suggestion is to adopt SWOT as the official name.

                       i.    WATER HM: This is too cumbersome and needs shortening.  WATER would be better but may have some negative connotations in non-english languages.

                     ii.    Hydrosphere Mapper: Is too all encompassing of the water cycle, i.e., KaRIN will not map rainfall, evaporation, soil moisture, snow, ice, or groundwater which are all part of the hydrosphere.

                   iii.    Jason or similar first-names: While Jason was good because it linked to the Argo floats, I am reluctant to confuse wide-swath with conventional altimetry.  Perhaps there is a name, but I can't think of a first name that would fit wide-swath.

                    iv.    H2O: Hydrology and Oceanography Observatory (one H, two O's).  This sounds too much like a chemistry mission.

                      v.    SWOT: It is good to keep the traceability with the Decadal Survey and that would well-serve the U.S. community. For example, the recently passed U.S. Federal budget uses SWOT. Given that CNES has also used this name in their correspondence, it appears that they have also accepted SWOT.  The main negatives to this name are that it sounds like we are trying to hit something and that the acronym has no obvious meaning, especially with respect to hydrology or oceanography.  On the other hand, I'm guessing that the acronym has no strange meanings in non-english languages?

 

 

Scroll Down for more meeting information.

 

 

Meeting Location Information

CNES Headquarters

Centre national d'études spatiales
2 place Maurice Quentin
75 039 PARIS CEDEX 01
FRANCE
Tel : 33 (0)1.44.76.75.00
Fax : 33 (0)1.44.76.76.76

CNES HQ is located near the famous Pont Neuf, Louvre, and Ile de la Cite.  The Metro system in Paris is outstanding and I think easy to use.  We are working on finding hotels, but you should feel free to find one yourself, but understand that Paris hotel rooms are very small.  Instead, enjoy the city!

I recommend taking the train from CDG into Paris: The rapid RER train service links Charles de Gaulle Airport with central Paris . Trains run every 15 minutes (eight minutes in peak periods) and the journey takes approximately 35 minutes. Line B runs from the TGV station at Terminal 2 to Gare du Nord, Châtelet-les-Halles (les Halles is next to CNES HQ), Saint-Michel and Denfert-Rochereau, with connections to the metro.

 

 

 

 

 

Invitees and Attendance (as of January 29, 2008)

 

Name

Email

Will Attend

Attending

Not Atttending

1

Aaron Boone

aaron.boone@meteo.fr

Y

1

 

2

Alain Mallet

alain.mallet@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

3

Alix Lombard

alix.lombard@legos.obs-mip.fr

Y

1

 

4

Anny Cazenave

anny.cazenave@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

5

Bruno Cugny

bruno.cugny@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

6

Bruno Lazard

bruno.lazard@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

7

C.K. Shum

ckshum@osu.edu

N

 

1

8

Dennis Lettenmaier

dennisl@u.washington.edu

Y

1

 

9

Detlef Stammer

detlef.stammer@t-online.de

 

 

 

10

Doug Alsdorf

alsdorf.1@osu.edu

Y

1

 

11

Dudley Chelton

chelton@coas.oregonstate.edu

N

 

1

12

Eric Dombrowsky

eric.dombrowsky@mercator-ocean.fr

Y

1

 

13

Eric Lindstrom

eric.j.lindstrom@nasa.gov

Y

1

 

14

Eric Thouvenot

Eric.Thouvenot@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

15

Ernesto Rodriguez

ernesto.rodriguez@jpl.nasa.gov

Y

1

 

16

Florent Lyard

florent.lyard@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

17

Gregg Jacobs

Gregg.Jacobs@nrlssc.navy.mil

Y

1

 

18

Herve Jeanjean

herve.jeanjean@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

19

Jacques Verron

jacques.verron@hmg.inpg.fr

Y

1

 

20

Jared Entin

jared.k.entin@nasa.gov

N

 

1

21

Jim Graf

James.E.Graf@jpl.nasa.gov

Y

1

 

22

Juliette Lambin

juliette.lambin@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

23

Larry Smith

lsmith@geog.ucla.edu

N

 

1

24

Lee-Lueng Fu

llf@jpl.nasa.gov

N

 

1

25

Nelly Mognard

nelly.mognard@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

26

Parag Vaze

pvaze@jpl.nasa.gov

 

 

 

27

Pascale Ultré-Guérard

 

Y

1

 

28

Paul Bates

paul.bates@bristol.ac.uk

Y

1

 

29

Pierre de Mey

pierre.de-mey@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

30

Pierre-Yves Le Traon

pierre.yves.le.traon@ifremer.fr

Y

1

 

31

Richard Ray

ray@nemo.gsfc.nasa.gov

N

 

1

32

Rosemary Morrow

Rosemary.Morrow@cnes.fr

N

 

1

33

Sophie Coutin-Faye

sophie.coutin-faye@cnes.fr

Y

1

 

34

Steve Nerem

nerem@colorado.edu

 

 

 

35

Sylvain Biancamaria

SYLVAIN.BIANCAMARIA@legos.obs-mip.fr

Y

1

 

36

Ted Strub

tstrub@coas.oregonstate.edu

N

 

1

37

Tony Freeman

anthony.freeman@jpl.nasa.gov

Y

1

 

38

Yi Chao

Yi.Chao@jpl.nasa.gov

N

 

1

39

Yves Menard

Yves.Menard@cnes.fr

N

 

1

 

 

 

 

26

10

 
Summary of:

Inaugural Meeting of the WATER HM Science Working Group

October 29th and 30th, 2007 in Washington D.C.

 

Your edits are welcomed. Date of this document is November 1, 2007; updated November 25, 2007

Link to Meeting Agenda and Presentations:

http://bprc.osu.edu/water/Meetings_WATERHM/FirstMeetingSWG_Fall2007/

 

While the Air France strike forced people to remain in France, our meeting still brought together a group of people from France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. (attendance is listed below). No official decisions were made, but recommendations were developed and are presented in this document for further discussion. The following is a summary of ideas developed and recommendations made during the meeting.  I hope to develop a more extensive write-up of the meeting.  -- Doug

1.     Phase A: The SWG should request that CNES and NASA HQ communicate regarding the need to keep WATER HM moving forward. CNES would like to move into Phase A studies in March 2008 whereas NASA HQ may not have the funds to support Phase A studies. Continued dialogue between Mike Freilich, Pascal Ultre-Guerard, Eric Thouvenot, and the WATER HM SWG is needed.

2.     Meetings: The inability of the hotel to supply effective telecom communication limited the interactions with those unable to attend the meeting. Follow-up meeting(s) including video-conferencing between JPL and CNES as well as face-to-face meetings are needed over the next one to three months.  Furthermore, given the lack of full SWG participation, it may not be appropriate to call the October 29th and 30th meeting the “inaugural” meeting.

3.     Mike Freilich indicated that he will closely follow the recommendations of the NRC Decadal Survey (DS) not only because of the scientific merits but also because the U.S. government relies heavily upon the recommendations of decadal surveys.

a.      He would like for the SWG to “close the loop” between the DS and the oceanographic and hydrologic communities, i.e., to ensure that the respective communities confirm that the mission capabilities address the important science questions. This is largely already done for WATER HM, especially given all of our previous two years work. 

b.     He would like for us to continue to be “firm, objective, persuasive, and sustained advocates” of WATER HM because, while the DS may have justified the mission, the DS did not make the arguments to the necessary depth. If we fail to keep the momentum, it is possible to slip in time, but, on the other hand, activities are unlikely to move the mission forward in time ahead of Phase 1 DS missions.

c.      Before Mike Freilich arrived at our meeting, I indicated that both houses of Congress have appropriated between $60M and $100M for NASA’s Earth Science Division. Freilich reiterated the above point. [Editorial note: A reading of the House bill, page 112, indicates that these moneys are for the first seven DS missions, including WATER HM and that these funds are intended to allow Phase A and pre-Phase A studies.  It is has been suggested in the national media that the overall funding bill will likely be vetoed by the President].

d.     WATER HM will not be an ESSP mission. ESSP is for missions outside of the DS.

e.      Jason-3 appears to becoming less firm, not more firm.

4.     Science questions are prioritized but are not as well articulated as needed. Societal questions should not drive the mission and, instead, should be a direct result of the science questions.

a.      WATER HM will produce data that should transform hydrology, much like Topex/Poseidon did for oceanography nearly 20 years ago.

b.     The topmost hydrology question should either include both storage changes and discharge, or focus on just storage changes. The implications of the word “prediction” imply something about the future whereas we should say “estimate”, thus indicate an immediate result of WATER HM.

c.      The topmost oceanographic question is focused on eddy kinetic energy (i.e., measuring EKE at the fine spatial-scale necessary to understand the energy dissipation). Measurements of sea-surface heights in coastal zones are also a priority, especially given that conventional altimetry significantly under-samples the coasts. The question dealing with hurricanes is not well worded and should probably not emphasize hurricanes, instead place an emphasis on air-sea interactions.

5.     Risk reduction studies are needed to further refine the mission and keep it on track for a launch in the 2013-2016 timeframe indicated by the DS.  Studies include:

a.      WSOA was not designed as a Ka-band SAR system, thus the extensive JPL studies conducted for WSOA need to be expanded to include Ka-band and the ability to produce a synthetic aperture.

b.     Given that all early DS missions will produce large amounts of data, it is possible that additional downlink capacity will be available by launch. Nevertheless, on-board processing to reduce data volumes might be required. Such processing needs to be prototyped.

c.      Corrections for the wet and dry troposphere are needed. Regarding radiometers, what are their power requirements and what are the risks associated with newly developed ones? Conventional radiometers are viable for WATER HM over the oceans, thus what are the alternatives to advanced radiometers for making corrections over coastal and land areas?

d.     The Ka-band radar studies over three Ohio water bodies were useful for demonstrating that KaRIN will record off-nadir returns. It would be beneficial to have a more extensive study of the surface conditions, wind speeds, and resultant backscatter strength and signal correlation. Perhaps adding beamwidth and pulse size to the study would help delineate the implications of small “flat patches” along river surfaces.

6.     Mission design studies, like the risk reduction studies, will help delineate the power, accuracy, and sampling.

a.      The orbit should be within an inclination of 66 to 90 degrees, an altitude of ~800 to ~1000 km, and non-sun-synchronous. A French development, Platform 2012, is capable of handling the expected power requirements, articulated solar panels, and instruments for WATER HM. There is an overwhelming majority in favor of a non-sun-synchronous orbit. Thus any effort to move away from the general orbit defined above will require a study that clearly defines the benefits of an alternative orbit.

b.     The hydrology virtual mission will demonstrate the time and space trade-offs (orbital sampling) for deriving water storage changes and estimating discharge. Given that every watershed around the world will be sampled every orbital repeat cycle (and most likely every half repeat cycle), data assimilation is an ideal tool to define the derived storage change and discharge accuracies and errors. Similar coastal zone and oceanographic virtual missions should also be considered. These will not alter the science questions, rather will help to carefully define the expected gains in science.

7.     A report of the SWG is needed to enable the mission to move into Phase A studies. The report will define the motivating science questions, make a preliminary mission design, and establish a mission timeline. The report will take about a year to complete. It includes the risk reduction and mission definition studies. A preliminary version of this report could be distributed in February 2008 to enable a “pre-Phase A” description of WATER HM.

 

Meeting Attendees: Anthony Freeman, Bruno Lazard, C.K. Shum, Dani Esteban Fernandez, Delwyn Moller, Dennis Lettenmaier, Detlef Stammer, Diane Evans, Doug Alsdorf, Eric Lindstrom, Ernesto Rodriguez, Gregg Jacobs, Jared Entin, John Melack, Kostas Andreadis, Larry Smith, Lee-Lueng Fu, Mike Durand, Paul Bates, Richard Ray, Shannon Brown, Steve Nerem, Ted Strub, Yi Chao