00:00:05:01 - 00:00:15:11 Speaker 1 Okay. So we're going to start back with our summary reports. We're going to start with the architecture group. 00:00:16:19 - 00:00:24:00 Speaker 2 Everybody, um, so so I think the best. 00:00:24:00 - 00:00:34:23 Speaker 3 Comment came from Mark here, which was our number one job is make everyone unhappy or equally unhappy. Not unhappy. Equally unhappy. 00:00:37:11 - 00:00:48:11 Speaker 3 So. So, I mean, this none of this is, you know, breakthrough findings or anything. You know, I think we've already talked a lot about all these things. I think revisit times and things. 00:00:48:11 - 00:00:49:09 Speaker 2 Like that, drive. 00:00:49:22 - 00:01:03:03 Speaker 3 A lot and be nice to understand per topic. But what those are. And more importantly, I want to go down a few I think really now we scroll down just a little bit. 00:01:08:11 - 00:01:36:13 Speaker 3 Well, actually, right there in the middle needs refinement idea of standardized in the terminology that we have in our, you know, in our previous report getting into what is observables versus products and now what is meant by things like coverage was Brian Brian brought the example. When you say coverage, you mean 90% of the volcanoes or of each or 90% of each volcano, 100% of the volcanoes. 00:01:36:13 - 00:02:05:23 Speaker 3 That 90% coverage of each one. Yeah. He takes what she can get. It's okay. The idea of product definitions would be maybe a useful construct. Early to help us, you know, go down for thread understand you know the accuracy resolution quality from just thinking through what is the actual files that you want to consume out of the systems. 00:02:05:23 - 00:02:20:05 Speaker 3 You know, we're going to look at that I sattu as an example that um and the having the evidence, I. 00:02:20:05 - 00:03:05:05 Speaker 4 Also said, you know, we did talk a bit about, you know, different, not just different instrument and measurement modalities, but also different platform modalities, which sounded like overlapped a bit with the platform script. But, um, but that maybe the measurements from orbit have certain strengths and measurements from other, you know, from other platforms potentially these, these big waves or airplanes and trying to find the, the right match for the measurement that's, that's needed for, for the, you know, the instruments and the platforms and then get the right kind of level of repeats and things like that. 00:03:05:05 - 00:03:12:21 Speaker 4 So trying to strike the right balance and try to give us as many people what they're asking for as possible. 00:03:14:16 - 00:03:56:04 Speaker 3 So and that idea, of course, we we got into a little bit about is there specific experiments or collections that might be helpful to advance the product concepts? So the idea of coordinated airborne campaigns across modalities, but then, you know, David Chan could be there, but the first try to capture what he said earlier about the idea something synthetic campaigns idea that there are data sets that are that are especially coincident, maybe not necessarily in time and that could be you know exploited to help advance multi multimode problems for us TV. 00:03:57:11 - 00:04:14:23 Speaker 3 And also just the idea that there are, you know, as we heard earlier from Oregon that our data sets and others that perhaps we could fly over, fly other other modalities and collect that would be useful. Okay. Do you think along those lines? 00:04:14:23 - 00:04:39:17 Speaker 4 I think one question that we asked but did not answer was what level of coincidence is required for different measurement modalities? So a lot of people have talked about combining things like stereo photogrammetry with light. Ah, but do they have to be in the same track? Do they have to be, you know, if they have to be correlated in time, how closely do they have to be correlated in time? 00:04:41:02 - 00:05:03:24 Speaker 4 So those are, I'll just say questions that I think need answers in order to to plan out what the architecture looks like is, is understood, sending the different measurement modalities and then understanding how they could potentially play together and then trying to optimize that system. 00:05:03:24 - 00:05:09:09 Speaker 3 How that's about it for us. Okay, thanks. 00:05:11:00 - 00:05:46:05 Speaker 2 Oh, there you go. Nicely done. Okay. So this was the platform group breakout. So I'll just go through some notes. So we tried to identify all the existing relevant platform sensor combinations that we could think of at this time. So we consider these to be systems that have at least flown a bit, maybe not in their final operational envelope, but so if there's any here that we're missing, I'd sure like to know we didn't include us with structure from motion. 00:05:46:05 - 00:06:09:17 Speaker 2 I think that could maybe be added, although the obviously the coverage area isn't very big. But any other thoughts from the folks that didn't get up to make our that's a no. And then in terms of future tier all six by 2028, so four or five years from now, I included the G-4, which is under models right now, as well as the 777. 00:06:10:16 - 00:06:35:16 Speaker 2 In terms of the crewed aircraft, we're hopefully going to be acquiring another G five in the coming years. We're working on that business case right now. I also put stars against some of the systems that are currently well funded and likely to be operational in the stratosphere by 28. And I also I'm the chair for the Interagency Coordinating Committee for aircraft across the agencies. 00:06:35:16 - 00:07:00:23 Speaker 2 And I know the DOE arm group is acquiring a new business jet, so that might be the interest to us as well. And then there's also discussions about the ability to cover larger areas with us by doing systematic arrays of them. So a swarm, if you will, that can then all of them can collect data over a much larger area. 00:07:00:23 - 00:07:26:19 Speaker 2 Then we talked about mapping to measurements and so we kind of broke it up by crude and haps. So just the advantage is being we can complement satellite data by planning high resolution acquisitions. The 777 obviously can fly the three main instrument categories all at once to do it or comparisons. So I think that's very valuable. And the existing business jet configurations have the the two name ports and fairly long range. 00:07:26:19 - 00:07:50:16 Speaker 2 So those are also I think seen as an important tool to that maps against most of these disciplines. In terms of haps the idea there is really the focus on the high spatial and temporal resolution. So we list out some of the phenomena that I think would be most applicable to those measurements. And then change detection ability to respond quickly. 00:07:51:02 - 00:08:30:08 Speaker 2 Kind of the event driven science we see as as roles that those vehicles could play in terms of needed technology advances. I think we're still in the early stages of really understanding what these systems can do. But as we're as we have more and this is haps, you know, as we get more operational data out of them, the idea is to be able to then build those into RC so that we can compare different types of constellations of large satellites, small satellites, cubesats, harps, and trying to be able to go through as many combinations as possible to see how you know, what the tradeoffs are for different types of science targets, say more outside of 00:08:30:08 - 00:08:53:06 Speaker 2 our control is this notion that for these systems to be more capable, they need higher battery power density that will expand the range, as well as providing more power to the payloads, which is somewhat limited to like around 100 to 150 watts right now. We discussed onboard processing a bit and I'll talk about that a little bit later. 00:08:53:06 - 00:09:16:02 Speaker 2 But I guess the the opposing thought is in ten years, you know, we'll have everybody can have StarLink on the size of a credit card and we'll all be talking to each other at, you know, high bandwidth. So it may not be required. But so that's one of those question marks. That's why we have a question whether the use of UAB's continues to be hindered by the inability to operate effectively beyond visual line of sight. 00:09:16:02 - 00:09:51:06 Speaker 2 And so there's plenty of groups working on that. So we assume that that will happen in parallel between FAA, NASA, Air, MDA and new technologies that are popping up. But it's still important to note that the capabilities of use are still limited by that, as well as the access to airspace for upper e for haps. And then I guess we suggested that we need to think about concepts where you have these different platform types and how are they going to talk to each other, how are they going to work as a, as a single observatory? 00:09:51:22 - 00:10:15:16 Speaker 2 So I'm not sure that's as much a technology advance, but it does touch on the need for real time processing and telemetry and queuing strengths and weaknesses. So the strengths high spatial temperatures solution, the ability to swap out payloads where you can't do that with spacecraft unless you have a another spacecraft and astronauts. But we don't really do that very much. 00:10:15:16 - 00:10:37:07 Speaker 2 Obviously, the geostationary like sit and stare capability is important for these. And that's something that that, you know, you can't get high resolution from geostationary typically. And then just the idea that these can enable the instrument comparisons that I think we all need to do. We need to collect data contemporaneously so that we can look at data fusion weaknesses. 00:10:37:11 - 00:11:00:12 Speaker 2 Obviously, it's not a satellite, so it can't cover the globe. So it's really going you get really got to focus on on these areas that require the high spatial, high temporal. And then some of these are repeats. I didn't finish one of those sentences. Sorry about that. Airspace challenges, low swap accommodations. Those are I think those are all pretty well known. 00:11:01:16 - 00:11:33:08 Speaker 2 We also to talk about the whole rapid response element is, you know, if we're going to be chasing after these hazards and collecting data, the idea that right now, even with crewed aircraft in a known configuration that's been approved, it's still really it's not easy to to get an aircraft over a scene in time. So I think there may be an additional element that needs to be talked through is how do we how can we shorten that time timeline between tasking and acquisition for aircraft? 00:11:33:08 - 00:11:56:06 Speaker 2 And then I think this is the last one. So needed advancements just pointing out that, you know, these HAP systems, while they're operational, they're largely untested. We need to really fly them a lot more to understand their strengths and weaknesses and their limitations, but also to build up that safe flight record that allows them to get safely into the airspace. 00:11:56:06 - 00:12:13:05 Speaker 2 We need more power for for the active payloads. That's going to be a limitation for the current configurations. We talked about the onboard processing versus SATCOM and the rapid response, so I think that summarizes it. Paul didn't miss anything for anybody else from. 00:12:13:05 - 00:12:21:05 Speaker 3 The the group. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Do most of. 00:12:21:05 - 00:12:22:22 Speaker 2 These things work that night? 00:12:23:12 - 00:12:25:04 Speaker 4 Just. 00:12:25:04 - 00:12:42:13 Speaker 2 Yeah, I mean, they have to, right? So they're designed just like the let's just use the small example. Okay. The question was, can these things work at night? I think you mean the hap systems. So it's important to note that small UAV is typically are not allowed to fly at night. So that's how you can get special permissions and they're working on that. 00:12:42:13 - 00:13:08:01 Speaker 2 So I'm sure in the future we'll be able to. But the hap systems. Absolutely the the design. So they're like the school system. The requirement was to stay aloft for 30 days. So what they do is they charge their batteries during the day and then when night hits, they slowly descend to about 55,000 feet or maybe lower. And then when the sun comes back up, then they start ascending back to their operational altitude. 00:13:08:13 - 00:13:29:06 Speaker 2 So they can absolutely I mean, depending on the aircraft and the payload, you may be able to take data overnight or depending on, you know, if it's a power hungry payload, they may not you mean there may not be enough power on board? That's presently right. That's what current solar panels and batteries. But that's changing. 00:13:30:24 - 00:13:39:03 Speaker 1 Any other questions? Thank you. Thanks, man. 00:13:45:03 - 00:14:00:12 Speaker 1 All right, Ben, do you want to go now? 00:14:00:12 - 00:14:09:17 Speaker 5 So I'm going to take the novel strategy of looking at my slides and not showing them to you unless I can just plug this straight in. You can. I cannot ask. 00:14:09:24 - 00:14:10:20 Speaker 1 You to put it on a memory. 00:14:10:20 - 00:14:36:14 Speaker 5 Stick. No, no, no, no. I'll just shove this one. It's inside. Oh, I could do that. Yeah, I was mostly listening into that last talk rather than watching the slides, so I'm just going to sort of scan through these to remind myself. So the group was really helpful in filling me in on technologies and strategies that I hadn't been aware of. 00:14:37:02 - 00:14:51:05 Speaker 5 And so we have quite a list of a lot of the categories for things that I had a couple of in the 20 minute talk. Should we just pause for a sec? Yeah. Okay. 00:14:51:11 - 00:14:52:12 Speaker 1 That's just it. 00:14:53:11 - 00:14:55:20 Speaker 5 Well, I'm not quite sure what you're doing. 00:14:55:20 - 00:14:57:14 Speaker 1 I was just pulling it for you so you didn't have to. 00:14:57:18 - 00:15:38:24 Speaker 5 Oh, okay, that's fine. All right. What is this thing exactly? Thank you. So we were filled in on a few more active technologies that are available for later, including some technologies that are operating at multiple wavelengths, most of them not for orbital use, but there's a couple of systems that operate typically in multiples of 532 nanometers. And so the advantage of having the multiple frequencies is to be able to do some target classification. 00:15:38:24 - 00:16:19:23 Speaker 5 And also if you're down in the green to be able to see into water as well. We talked about some of the different ways that lighter gets used and sort of generally expanded the list of potential synergies between light hour and other measurement strategies and kind of clarified the idea that although light hour can be used to calibrate other techniques, for example, radar techniques, the calibration is often not just something that you do once and then you can use it around the world. 00:16:20:03 - 00:16:52:11 Speaker 5 So there are often lighter data needed in multiple environments to maintain a calibration and that could be used globally, you know, sensor fusion sort of context. So people pointed out the different ways in which this has been done and gave different examples of of ways in which that's done. So it sort of emphasized for me the use of light as an additional sensor that plays well with other sensors that might get more coverage and more wall to wall mapping. 00:16:53:24 - 00:17:19:02 Speaker 5 We also talked about the idea that lighter is not just lighter. So the parameters that you choose for your system can have a big impact on the sorts of answers you get. So larger footprint systems give more potential to sort of make large scale measurements over forests that are comparable to what you might make in a small in a small sampling area. 00:17:20:10 - 00:17:47:10 Speaker 5 But they may also get have trouble over steep surfaces where the terrain can be blurred by a large footprint or by a large pulse width. And a number of people have had trouble using Jedi data in those sorts of contexts. So that would tend to push for measurements with smaller footprints and higher resolution, especially for comparison with vegetation data. 00:17:47:10 - 00:18:19:23 Speaker 5 And it's important to understand that the parameters that you choose for one study site may not be appropriate for other study sites that you might want to look at. So a lot of the light idea that we have now is based on the neon sites which are relatively benign environment for light our measurements, whereas the world is a big place and there are all sorts of different environments, especially with high surface slopes or with closed canopies that we might not take into account in our design of the mission. 00:18:19:23 - 00:18:47:19 Speaker 5 If we only use the neon data to design the parameters that we need for the light, our. So yeah, it was a great breakout. I took a ton of notes and they're going to need some condensation before we do anything with them tomorrow. But I guess we'll discuss how that's going to work once we get into the smaller meetings tomorrow. 00:18:47:19 - 00:19:02:16 Speaker 1 And any questions for Ben, Matt or the AS. 00:19:03:12 - 00:19:05:15 Speaker 2 Was there any discussion of some of these quantum. 00:19:05:15 - 00:19:07:08 Speaker 3 Encoded light hours? 00:19:08:02 - 00:19:18:12 Speaker 5 I don't think we had anybody there who's worked on those things and seeing how the shaking. So we didn't talk about it, but that would be I'd be really interested to know if you know anything about that. 00:19:18:12 - 00:19:29:23 Speaker 2 Well, I've just I've been briefed on some of those developments and I think it should be included in here and the light. Our group should look into it because it looks really exciting in terms of being able to penetrate canopies. 00:19:30:09 - 00:19:49:03 Speaker 5 Okay. I saw one quadrant that had to do with looking into seeing layers within snow, but I wasn't sure that that was the TRL that was expected of that one. Very low TRL. Yeah. Okay. Is that true also of the canopy version of the same thing? 00:19:49:03 - 00:19:50:00 Speaker 2 I think I was in there. 00:19:51:09 - 00:19:55:12 Speaker 5 Okay. Okay. So I'm hearing that the trials are two or three for these things. 00:19:55:17 - 00:20:03:24 Speaker 2 But so but if we're thinking what could it be 606 by 28, right? That's telling us for five years to develop. So that's why I would suggest maybe. 00:20:03:24 - 00:20:13:19 Speaker 5 But thank you. Anybody else? 00:20:13:19 - 00:20:14:03 Speaker 3 Yeah. 00:20:14:03 - 00:20:18:23 Speaker 1 This is coming from the opposite side of the room to make me run. 00:20:18:23 - 00:20:47:12 Speaker 3 Now, this is. How about from the chat or from the remote? One of the things I've not heard anybody talk about is a public private partnership. A lot of the advances, particularly in light, are, are being made by private companies. Uh, and so it would be very useful to kind of keep up with those and remind everybody that they also do processing and understand this stuff. 00:20:47:12 - 00:20:48:06 Speaker 3 Just two point. 00:20:49:08 - 00:20:52:08 Speaker 5 Naught. That's a great point. Thank you. 00:20:57:17 - 00:21:13:19 Speaker 1 Any other any other questions? If not, we'll we'll move on to the next report. We do the stereo stereo imaging through. Please. 00:21:13:19 - 00:21:43:01 Speaker 3 Thank you very much. All right. We had a very lively and involved discussion and the stereo imaging group set is very productive before, let's see, scrolling through my notes or crawling through them, I just want to provide a summary of what we talked about. And so one of the main overarching points that we came to should be fairly intuitive is that higher resolution stereo imagery is unilaterally better. 00:21:43:09 - 00:22:12:24 Speaker 3 The higher resolution that we can get, the better that's going to be, the more science objectives we can achieve and the more precision we'll get, especially when it comes to vertical measurements from the stereo component of the imagery, that being said, there's already a lot of great science we can do with existing technologies. And so that's one thing that kept coming up over and over is that what we have is already enabling lots of great science. 00:22:14:10 - 00:22:51:07 Speaker 3 The tricky thing about that is that a lot of the really high resolution stereo imagery comes from commercial companies, and so that's a good thing and a bad thing. It's a double edged sword. The good thing is that these companies provide really advanced imaging capabilities. But the bad thing, or at least the limitation, let's say, is that NASA and scientists have very limited control over how these instruments are optimized and developed and what details about them are shared with the researchers. 00:22:51:24 - 00:23:23:20 Speaker 3 So that's an important aspect about that. And so I'll summarize this again at the end. But Steve, I think needs to do two things going forward coming out of what we talked about. And one of those is that we need to get Nasser to push these companies, as with whatever clout or political stature it has, in order to give us the best metadata, the best data, the best technology that they can for our needs. 00:23:23:20 - 00:24:06:03 Speaker 3 So basically, Nasser needs to advocate for us to the best of their ability and our ability. And also, Nasser could design some custom systems to fill in the gaps for what's not been, what's not already being covered or optimized with these commercial data. So with that, I will work through the notes. So in terms of current, airborne and spaceborne technology, again, there are a lot of commercial data available, including Nexar, which is a company that provides world view data which is better than 50 centimeters, ground sample distance. 00:24:06:07 - 00:24:41:01 Speaker 3 So that's very good. There's Nasser Landsat and other Nasser products, commercial products, drone imagery is becoming more and more widely used. And then there's some aircraft sources of information and imagery, including Quakes II. All of those are currently available and being used and explored. And there's really still a lot of potential that can be gained from advanced analysis of the images in terms of emerging capabilities. 00:24:42:19 - 00:25:27:06 Speaker 3 Satellite resolution can be pushed further and collection schemes can be optimized. Those again, we would need to work with the commercial companies to develop other wavelengths such as thermal, infrared, or at least nascent technologies that are existing and need further development. There's a few potential limitations with those, including texture that you get, but also a lot of data that you wouldn't get just from optical imagery itself, or even the shorter waves of infrared. 00:25:27:06 - 00:26:00:03 Speaker 3 So the next category here, associating capabilities with measurement needs. Again, there are already a lot of great existing capabilities. And so then associating those with the science needs is where a lot of development can happen. Those include contract negotiations. So for example, with Max are there are severe limitations as to what we can do in terms of sharing the data, in terms of getting the raw data for our own specialized analyzes. 00:26:00:24 - 00:26:44:23 Speaker 3 So improvements could be made there. Not all researchers in the fields of science that we're all in have access to, Max, are imagery and they are very expensive. If you don't have a grant or a contract with them, there's a need for sustained measurements. So because these companies are max are a planet, companies like that are not part of Nasser, then there's no way to ensure that the data they provide now will be available in the future going forward to do the science that we're already doing. 00:26:44:23 - 00:27:32:00 Speaker 3 And there's a need for understanding, a need for understanding around variations in acquisition geometry. I think this is something I'll touch on in with the next points. But essentially what this means is the angular diversity or the looking goals that you have optimized for one application might be very different from those optimized for another. For example, wildfires were brought up and Max are will point their satellites at very low angle or high angle to the ground to see under the smoke as opposed to if you're looking for stereo imagery for topography, reconstruction, then you're going to need a very different satellite geometry for that. 00:27:32:00 - 00:28:04:20 Speaker 3 The next category technology advances for achieving measurement needs. Again, there is some headway to be made in terms of advances we would get as a broad community. We would get some advantage out of that and again, or reiterate that higher resolution is better across the board period. But there's other things that can be taken care of or taken into account. 00:28:04:20 - 00:28:43:02 Speaker 3 There just aren't. For example, satellite jitter can be accounted for by the commercial vendors, but it doesn't help their bottom line very much in terms of their business models. So it's not something that's explored so much by them. Other things like high latitude observations. Again, most of their business is not at the poles, not in Antarctica or northern Greenland, but there's a lot of science to be gained in those regions, so that would be very important. 00:28:43:02 - 00:29:21:08 Speaker 3 And a lot of data associated with the imaging acquisition geometries, both the camera model and the external orientations of the satellites. Next category strengths and weaknesses. Again, we harped on, harped on, Max are a lot more can be done in terms of getting more precise or better metadata and long term planning and working with existing systems. There's certainly synergies with other technologies, including light hour and radar. 00:29:21:08 - 00:30:06:12 Speaker 3 We've heard about some of those earlier today. We didn't get too into those. And in terms of I think we've touched on all the advantages need to achieve as TV goals. And I'll just wrap up with a final summary, which is that, again, high resolution is good. We already can do a lot with what we have, but we need to work with commercial vendors to ensure continuity and rigorous parameters, ation of the instruments that are available, and contracts that allow publishing of raw data and sharing and distribution of results as best we can do. 00:30:06:12 - 00:30:44:14 Speaker 3 That's see areas of interest to companies and scientists can differ. So science is not always considered in their business model. Acquisition geometries differ for different science applications and so although we can't necessarily get any of these things from commercial companies, we could use a detailed science mission to fill in some gaps. Licensing needs to be considered. Realistically, this point was brought up that okay, Nassau can pay for all these, but not with in a constrained budget. 00:30:44:21 - 00:31:21:09 Speaker 3 So ideally it would be possible, but practically not always. We need to be careful about what we advocate for. The strongest Nassau can't or shouldn't compete directly with satellite commercial imaging companies and also with the existing data we have, particularly the suborbital data, we need to quantify the fundamental limitations of those data. And in order to define what is the best we can do, for example, with UAV, certainly not UAV SAR, but with UAV imaging studies. 00:31:21:11 - 00:31:26:05 Speaker 3 Thanks. Any questions? 00:31:26:05 - 00:31:29:21 Speaker 1 Any questions for the stereo imaging group? 00:31:30:07 - 00:31:34:17 Speaker 6 When you say when you say UAV, is that drone small UARS or. 00:31:35:07 - 00:31:52:01 Speaker 3 Sorry that was the the word that came up in the discussion that that include it's suborbital platforms including for example quakes I hear fixed wing aircraft and drones. Thanks for that clarification. 00:31:53:04 - 00:32:20:08 Speaker 2 I just wanted to bring up as to funded technology that I think is relevant to that last bullet. It's this is fluid cam or fluid lensing, and they use a very slow moving UAV and then they do like a thousand frames per second video. So it's a venture I if he's at the University of Miami right now that he's doing bathymetry in coral reef teams and like some centimeter scale. 00:32:20:13 - 00:32:25:16 Speaker 2 Well. And so I think that's a technology that could be matured for higher altitudes. 00:32:26:18 - 00:32:28:23 Speaker 3 It sounds like it. 00:32:33:20 - 00:32:44:11 Speaker 1 Any other questions or comments? 00:32:44:11 - 00:32:53:07 Speaker 6 Maybe I space did you talk about where we should do suborbital campaigns and what we should do it jointly with? 00:32:53:07 - 00:33:02:13 Speaker 3 We didn't get to it too much. It's a good topic for discussion, though. 00:33:05:17 - 00:33:21:06 Speaker 1 Anyone else? Thanks for. All right. Last but not least, the radar group. 00:33:21:06 - 00:33:52:12 Speaker 7 Hi, everyone. We had a really good discussion. Thank you so much for my very supportive group members. You guys woke me up. Not that I was asleep, but anyway, we had a lot to say. But I'm going to try to be brief cover the main points we went through the template that you provided, which was really helpful in framing the discussion. 00:33:52:23 - 00:34:32:03 Speaker 7 So we listed the current Spaceborne platforms that's currently in space or will be in space. And then so there's, you know, the government owned ones and the commercial satellites. So like I said before, all but one of the commercial satellites are expanding, so I can say a little more about that later, but I think so in terms of airborne, you know, we kind of mentioned that before. 00:34:32:03 - 00:35:10:12 Speaker 7 We've got UAV, SA, the Naza platform into MAP, a commercial company expand in SA. They're doing they're still doing took the mapping for you know airlines and DOD's and foreign governments there's GAMA remote sensing car radar which cars are it's in Elbon which is really exciting and they're developing it and going to put it on the drone next year. 00:35:10:20 - 00:35:45:24 Speaker 7 And it's pretty lightweight. It's less than seven kilo. Okay. So in terms of emerging capabilities, I just want to highlight for the two relevant missions we've got Roselle, which is two open SA satellites to have the repeat observations. So it's not really for Insar, but what we're thinking of doing is actually launching companion satellites to piggyback on one of the ROSELLE satellites to do Tomo SA. 00:35:46:15 - 00:36:30:08 Speaker 7 So that's a relevant mission and harmony is the C-Band SA mission that has two satellites and it's going to be much more capable in terms of, you know, observation looking. And I think they're going to do multi squint from multi perspective imaging and doing the kind of things that are more along the lines of what STV aspires to do and attend to my own, which is a DLR, our mission proposal and fortunately I think right now it's on hold. 00:36:30:17 - 00:37:13:13 Speaker 7 They were not selected to move forward, so we're not sure what's going to happen and the ISA biomass mission, which is a P band SA that's going to be launched in 2025 and Suzanne was just telling us for the first 18 months of the mission, they're going to tweak the orbits such that they form multiple baselines, observations over the same area so they can produce a vertical structure on the order of 2 to 3 meter accuracy with a, I think, 200 meter horizontal resolution spacing. 00:37:14:06 - 00:38:01:02 Speaker 7 So that's really exciting to see how well they can do this. It could be a sort of a a trial mission for, you know, what we can do with Spaceborne Thomas. Our missions very exciting. Lots of radar, air, lots of commercial SA satellites. They just exploded and they are three that I'd like to highlight the ISO Finland one they are the they now have 21 satellite in space and Capella they have nine satellites operating in space. 00:38:01:02 - 00:38:47:06 Speaker 7 Right now there are X-band because they're, you know, higher, higher frequency, shorter wavelength, your antenna, smaller, it's easier to build lighter weight electronics, lighter weight payload. And also you can have a higher resolution imaging, which is, you know, if you're really into change detection, that's what you want to do is high resolution change detection. So I think Capella and I think Capellas saying that they have 50 centimeters resolution or something like that. 00:38:48:13 - 00:39:22:12 Speaker 7 And Umbra Lab is the late comer which is charging ahead with the old support. They have 25 centimeter accuracy, so they already have six satellites in space and really surprising progress, very exciting to see. So Nassau is in the state of BI agreement where they're going. I think we already have access to Eisai and Capella data and next year we'll have data access to umbrella data. 00:39:22:12 - 00:40:01:01 Speaker 7 So it's exciting to see what we can do with their data in terms of, you know, looking at accuracy and stuff like that and can't. Oh, and there was one thing that was pointed out to me was some of satellites, for example, the Umbra lab satellite and Capella satellites are available for tasking for rapid response. So you can task it like 72 hours ahead of time and you can get your data, the latency is pretty low. 00:40:01:09 - 00:41:03:17 Speaker 7 So it's really good for, you know, some sort of rapid response like flooding or volcano eruption, something like that. Okay. Emerging capabilities. We just made a long list of things that are you know, there is a lot of things going on with radar technology development. But I can grouped them into, you know, Thomas SA related technology whether it's algorithm development architecture optimization electronics needed to do timing synchronization for multi-platform operation a lot of Thomas related technology development and also there's airborne demo related to Thomas R technology development. 00:41:03:17 - 00:41:45:03 Speaker 7 So there was this there was the Dart's IP where they were demonstrating clock synchronization on multiple drones, like two drones, three drones. I think they demonstrated to flying drones and also one stationary target with two flying drones. Okay, UAV, SAR, where we've been collecting Thomas our data, it's not seeing coins, it's not contemporaneous, it's repass. Thomas Ah, so we're having to deal with, you know, the aircraft motion. 00:41:45:03 - 00:42:23:04 Speaker 7 It's kind of complicated, but we've been using that to develop processing algorithms, looking at temporal analysis. So very exciting data sets. A few of them were collected jointly with the light arm or collected over areas with light our data. So we're using light our data as the truth. And there's Flex DSR, which is an IP we're developing again Clock Sync and Digital Beamforming Electronics to do multi-site IC demo. 00:42:23:19 - 00:42:55:02 Speaker 7 And so this technology, once it's completed, there is a maturation path, technology and fusion path into small satellites. So this is really exciting. So we don't have to start from ground zero when we move to space. And then there's the biomass mission which will demonstrate Thomas are from space and somebody mentioned using swap to provide coastal ODM. That's really exciting. 00:42:55:02 - 00:43:30:24 Speaker 7 So what is the carbon single in a raw meter designed for surface water, of course, but there's no reason why we couldn't try to use it for coastal dam. Then potentially there is an s e mission proposal, one for snow, one of the radar. I think there were two radar concepts, both after snow measurements and position navigation, timing, electron takes by a lot of sensing. 00:43:31:08 - 00:44:00:04 Speaker 7 There are a couple of commercial companies that have airborne SAR capability in her map and I am sorry in Utah and then gamma and remote sensing, which has ground based radar and soon to be drone based. I'm not going to cover this. So we're just trying to figure out what measurements are for different observables need a technology advances. 00:44:00:19 - 00:44:41:14 Speaker 7 So I think that overarching measurement needs is that we need find temporal sampling over a range of spatial scales and resolutions. So, you know, we may need one global coverage, one global the once in a while, but then we need for select areas, we need more frequent coverage of varying range and spatial scales. So this kind of points to the need for both spaceborne and airborne observations or targeted spaceborne observations with small sats. 00:44:42:12 - 00:45:20:15 Speaker 7 So technology gaps. We talked about how to come, how to arrive at efficient observation approaches to retrieve vegetation structure and I think one critical thing that we need to address is what are the end products for different communities? You know, what's vegetation structure? It's different for different community. It means different things. For different. So we need to really define the end product. 00:45:20:15 - 00:45:57:01 Speaker 7 Then we can go back and develop a radar only solution as well, as radar and light our fusion solutions and compare which one have better can meet our requirements. Aspirations? I guess I shouldn't use requirements and then, you know, identifying a radar solution for snow depth. I think this one's being worked by the snow people already. So maybe we can just check in with them and see what we can support them. 00:45:57:24 - 00:46:29:19 Speaker 7 If there's anything we can do, lightweight and compact radar payload. I put less than 100 kilo here, you know, depends on the type of spacecraft. Maybe it needs to be even lighter. But it seemed like 100 kilo. You can get some decent small SATs, reasonably priced small SATs. I looked at the Capella latest mission. There are 180 kilo, including the spacecraft and the payload. 00:46:30:13 - 00:47:05:16 Speaker 7 Okay. Efficient solution for providing hourly revisit observations. So it sounds like maybe we need to be able to task commercial satellites in some sort of high altitude long endurance and platforms or APS is the new acronym. Data latency is also a very important one, which will require real time downlink because you either have to do real time downlink or you have to do onboard processing, or you can do both. 00:47:06:09 - 00:47:54:20 Speaker 7 And so that's really important. The other one is smart tasking, which some people call it compressive sensing. So basically you figure out where you don't keep the radar on all the time. You only keep it on when there's something interesting to look at. Okay, possible solutions, lightweight, deployable antennas. That's always like everybody wants a lightweight, deployable antenna for microwave, low frequency microwave radars, miniaturized electronics help platform for long endurance observation, electronic beam steering to increase coverage without sacrificing performance. 00:47:55:02 - 00:48:34:08 Speaker 7 So this is like a new imaging technique that Airbus is implementing on harmony, I think. Or is it on Roselle? On Roselle. Okay. So very cool. We didn't so I already talked about the gaps, didn't quite finish stretch strengths, whites, radar strains, wide swath and contiguous coverage. So that's the strength of all weather. It could see through clouds. 00:48:35:17 - 00:49:16:01 Speaker 7 So measured 24, 24, seven, it could see through vegetation if it's low enough frequency, it could address multiple disciplines. So it's not just a one trick instrument, multi frequency fusion with multiple will give us measurements of multiple layers on top of the surface, even subsurface. So very capable. And also it could, you know, the very low frequency can penetrate to get bedrock topography. 00:49:16:20 - 00:49:53:19 Speaker 7 And very importantly, there is a a lot of heritage in the radar, instruments in space missions as well as now commercial platforms are becoming much more available. So that's really exciting. We can do the government partnership and weaknesses. It's very heavy, very power hungry. So we need to be smart about your design. You don't like a distributed system, difficult to process. 00:49:53:19 - 00:50:32:16 Speaker 7 Processing is not straightforward and interpretation of the data by users is very challenging. So we're doing a lot of outreach, a lot of showing people how to interpret radar data. That's really important. And there's also geometric distortion because SA is side looking and there's radio frequency restrictions at low bands like P Band, which is what you want for the vegetation observation and compared to light, our air provides relatively coarse vertical resolution in vegetation. 00:50:34:08 - 00:51:41:24 Speaker 7 Okay, nothing is insurmountable technology synergy. So we talked about, oh, you know, definitely radar light are for vegetation synergy, also spaceborne and airborne synergy also it didn't say here, but there's radar stereo photogrammetry synergy as well. We've got SA Fusion flying with UAV SA exploring what sort of synergistic products we can generate. Let's see, we also have passive sensors to co fly with other, you know, piggyback on other instruments, other platforms like having receive only systems to fly with the Roselle radar to get Thomas R and what can other measurements support the about this technology. 00:51:42:15 - 00:52:17:04 Speaker 7 Oh, so we said okay with LIDAR it could help with ranging and calibration and with optical and light are we can they can assist with detecting biases in urban areas and vegetation. So again calibration. Okay then we talked about experiments. Oh, people just went crazy. They want to do everything, multi instrument, everything. We have camping over a wide range of vegetation, ecosystems and multi temperature experiments. 00:52:17:12 - 00:53:16:21 Speaker 7 So look at a specific area, pre and post fire, pre and post floods or doing and debris flow. So high topography area, complex terrain area. So basically a wide ranging target. And we decided that that was a lot and we really need to have a separate meeting to kind of prioritize what our airborne camping needs are so we can be more focused and articulate about what are the most important airborne campaigns that we should conduct to give us the data sets to figure out what sort of observing strategy or observing observation architecture we should contemplate. 00:53:16:21 - 00:53:23:18 Speaker 7 That's it. Thank you. 00:53:23:18 - 00:53:32:02 Speaker 1 Any questions or comments from the audience here or anyone online? 00:53:32:02 - 00:53:39:18 Speaker 3 I should have brought this up in the session, but yeah. 00:53:39:18 - 00:53:41:09 Speaker 4 I hope that we can get away. 00:53:41:09 - 00:53:47:04 Speaker 3 From the simple description of penetration going with frequency. 00:53:47:13 - 00:53:48:07 Speaker 4 And determinant. 00:53:48:07 - 00:53:57:00 Speaker 3 Being the sole determining determination as to which frequency we use because there's something more to it than than penetration. 00:53:57:00 - 00:53:58:15 Speaker 2 There's also the vertical. 00:53:58:15 - 00:54:11:04 Speaker 3 Wavelength that you're measuring when you hit it with aa3 centimeter or an 80 centimeter, you're looking at different structure and. Okay. 00:54:12:12 - 00:54:19:13 Speaker 7 All right, yes, we need multiple frequencies because it's sensitive to different things in the structure. 00:54:19:14 - 00:54:27:13 Speaker 4 And expand and expand and and sacrifice. 00:54:27:13 - 00:54:36:18 Speaker 3 A little bit of loss of signal to get those higher harmonic harmonics. It's a design consideration, but that's the doors open for all those possibilities. 00:54:36:18 - 00:54:38:16 Speaker 1 Not just, okay, no penetration. 00:54:38:22 - 00:54:40:17 Speaker 2 Off the list. 00:54:40:17 - 00:54:41:16 Speaker 3 It's not that simple. 00:54:42:18 - 00:54:52:14 Speaker 7 I know. Only if life were that simple. I totally agree. 00:54:52:14 - 00:55:16:12 Speaker 1 Anyone else? So that's the end of the kind of breakouts that anything that we maybe didn't capture. You had some time to think about some of the other presentations and I want to have something on the the record forever speak now or forever hold your peace. I think I've heard that somewhere. 00:55:16:12 - 00:55:40:08 Speaker 6 So we finished with technology and we're all running out of steam, but we want to have time for discussion and we're we're going to end. We end naturally. I'd like to know what we missed, what you think was good, and where we need to go in the future. The team is meeting tomorrow to capture findings, so this is your opportunity to make sure if something's really important, please reiterate it to us. 00:55:41:01 - 00:55:54:04 Speaker 6 If people could help take notes, they'd appreciate that I can sit down in a minute to do that. I wanted to give us a break for 1/2. So such is that sharing about places or now? 00:55:55:05 - 00:55:55:12 Speaker 3 Yeah. 00:55:56:15 - 00:56:15:12 Speaker 6 Here's our group photo, so I'll send that out. The logo is going to be tweaked a little bit because we need one of those two snow covered mountains to be an active volcano. But in that is is pretty well set unless somebody hates it and wants to tell us how to fix it. I kind of like the 3D look. 00:56:15:12 - 00:56:37:10 Speaker 6 The buildings in the walkway gave it so I tried to make the heads about the same size of the virtual people. Does anybody have any comments? Did we miss something? Are you do you have any burning things? You're thinking about something you're going to go home and complain about or be excited about. Matt You need a mic. 00:56:37:10 - 00:56:54:04 Speaker 2 So, so I think we know that the STB team is meeting tomorrow, but maybe for the community you can kind of talk about what are the next steps in the incubation team in terms of deadlines for getting reports out? The digital survey is asking for comments right now, so maybe some of these forward looking actions. 00:56:54:19 - 00:57:20:22 Speaker 6 Yeah, the Decadal Survey had a RFI very brief on what science has been done, where we're going the team's meeting tomorrow. The Decadal Survey starts up it's process in a couple of years. So we want to be in good shape by then. We're not doing reports. We had pretty extensive conversations with Ben about this. It wasn't in our contract, but also we want to have published literature instead. 00:57:21:12 - 00:57:41:15 Speaker 6 So as soon as this is all behind me, I'm going to propose a special collection for Earth and Space Science. And you Online Open Access Journal. And I like to have a repository there and the team and our community should do a synopsis paper in there. Cathleen Jones is an editor. She's not here, but. Or maybe she. Well, there you are. 00:57:41:19 - 00:58:01:07 Speaker 6 Do you want to say anything about earth and space science or. We covered it. Okay. She's an editor, but she sent me the information for me to propose to the volume. We had one open a couple of years ago, but it was premature and we didn't get any papers. But I want to tell you that there's a special session on Monday at AG You Poster an oral session, there's an agar session. 00:58:01:07 - 00:58:34:18 Speaker 6 So Science Focus is at AG. You guys will be more on technology. So look for that. I think the deadline is sometime in January for those abstracts. I forgot what I was gonna say. Oh, I'm going to survey the community both on this meeting, but also on science to measurements. In the absence of technology. So start our science traceability matrix clean devoid of any technology, just what measurements, what observable is doing, in what geophysical are we trying to understand and how it relates to the science? 00:58:35:04 - 00:58:56:20 Speaker 6 Then we talked briefly in the architecture site session about going the other way, you know, from the technologies backwards to their capabilities and we can see where those meet and where we need to do some work. It's it's another way of identifying gaps. What am I missing, Craig? What other activities do we have planned? Well, there'll be a community meeting once a year and team meetings in between. 00:58:56:20 - 00:58:57:06 Speaker 6 Go ahead. 00:58:57:15 - 00:59:15:17 Speaker 3 Mr.. QUESTION What is the. Yeah, what's the timeline for a special issue? Are you are you targeting to have publication opens two years from now? And is that kind of something that needs to spin up now or and just what does that look like? 00:59:16:24 - 00:59:38:10 Speaker 6 My intent. And Kathleen, I think it's okay if we can do it this way. Is to open it up as soon as possible. Is just me getting the proposal written. It's not very long, it's just time, and then keeping it open to at least 2025. The other issue was open for a few years. Right? So we can leave it open because it's an online journal, you know, it doesn't get bound and printed, so we can just keep adding. 00:59:38:10 - 00:59:46:16 Speaker 6 And that's why they call it a collection, topical collection rather than a special issue. But then people can search for it. 00:59:46:16 - 01:00:11:05 Speaker 3 They're in terms of Matt's question about like a report or synthesis, you are also thinking about developing my synthesis paper papers, right? So that's essentially a replacement for a report or an addendum to the study report is that is doing that synthesis within the peer reviewed? 01:00:11:05 - 01:00:24:13 Speaker 6 That's correct. We want the synthesis paper, but rather than as a report, have it in the literature, you know, it's peer reviewed, it's better vetted. So do you have anything to add? 01:00:24:13 - 01:00:55:18 Speaker 1 We're planning to start doing some some webinars, maybe some science and technology, alternating months. We've got some initial ideas. But if you have someone who maybe couldn't attend here that you think could provide something compelling either in one of the science categories, one of the technologies or at the intersection of both of them. We would love to have some ideas about who you think the group could benefit from, from hearing and those. 01:00:55:21 - 01:01:27:15 Speaker 6 Yeah, those will all be recorded. Susan Bell is graciously offered to help with the STV website at headquarters. She has a lot of web experience, even though she's also a pilot and in the suborbital group. So hopefully we can clean that up, post all the webinars, post this meeting. So there's a central place to go, have a link to the Earth and Space Science Journal issue, etc. And then in terms of other activities, there's a validation we want to do airborne campaigns to plan community activities that we need to do to mature. 01:01:27:16 - 01:01:39:11 Speaker 6 STV In addition to all our own research that we're doing as part of STV, I'm, I. 01:01:39:24 - 01:02:11:19 Speaker 3 Was interested in knowing your thinking in developing those traceability metrics matrixes, because I think they are really important for the discussions, including the technology. And for now we looked at pretty immature yet because we need to define better the target observables like breaking down the vegetation structure into things like you know actual measurements. And that was and also not only that things that you can measure but also the things that you can model from them, you know, from the measurements. 01:02:12:18 - 01:02:37:19 Speaker 3 Because at the when will be these negotiations between the optimal architecture will be important not only with what we can measure, but also we can model. And I think I don't know if we will have intent to do some interaction with the community to get these, you know, like specific things. Like, for example, the I know the person that is managing mountain lions, I don't know, in Santa Barbara, they will have specific requirement. 01:02:37:19 - 01:02:41:19 Speaker 3 It's different from people from fuel loads or, you know, biomass. 01:02:43:15 - 01:03:00:16 Speaker 6 Yeah, I want to do a rigorous traceability. We need that and we will we try to be very transparent and vet everything through the community? So at that point we'll post it. We're going to get well, I have the nice our requirements. We're going to get the ISAT requirements as a starting point. Also, we talked about data levels. 01:03:00:16 - 01:03:07:16 Speaker 6 We need to, you know, account for what kind of data products people need. I'm sorry. 01:03:07:16 - 01:03:08:08 Speaker 3 Priorities. 01:03:08:08 - 01:03:32:24 Speaker 6 But yeah, priorities for the projects and we need to crystallize it. I think the first study I've said many times to people individually here, you know, was a great start to get the community together, but it was five different science disciplines, applications and then five different cross-sections of technology in different ways. And we all got talking and moving in the same direction. 01:03:32:24 - 01:03:40:14 Speaker 6 Now we need to start crystallizing these these ideas on only. 01:03:40:14 - 01:03:56:02 Speaker 1 Only thing I can think to add is if you brought a poster and you would like to take it with you on the on the way out, make sure you pick it up because we have to clean out of here right afterwards. So don't forget your poster if you want to keep it. 01:03:56:02 - 01:04:16:16 Speaker 6 Any other questions, comments, thoughts? Helen, do you have anything to say? Because I know we had Bill talk, but you were on the Decadal Survey, too. Do you have anything you want to add? Right. You need a mix of online. People can hear. 01:04:16:16 - 01:04:21:11 Speaker 7 Thank you. I mean, Bill was very good at saying, I'm just here to observe. 01:04:21:11 - 01:04:22:10 Speaker 8 So I guess I'll just. 01:04:22:10 - 01:04:36:17 Speaker 7 Take that line. But no, I mean, I think it's a tough job. You got a lot of people with a lot of different interests, and I think that it's good to all move forward. But think about the, you know, what each different community needs, but also. 01:04:36:18 - 01:04:37:14 Speaker 8 Be like. 01:04:37:19 - 01:04:42:19 Speaker 7 Make sure like the vegetation people are talking to, the coastal bathymetry, people are talking to. 01:04:42:19 - 01:04:44:13 Speaker 8 The cryosphere, people have those. 01:04:44:13 - 01:04:45:20 Speaker 7 Conversations across. 01:04:45:24 - 01:04:46:05 Speaker 8 To. 01:04:46:05 - 01:04:47:19 Speaker 7 Work out so that you all know. 01:04:47:19 - 01:04:48:23 Speaker 8 Exactly what the other. 01:04:49:15 - 01:04:50:22 Speaker 7 Community needs. 01:04:51:00 - 01:04:55:13 Speaker 8 So it's not just five different communities. It's one community. 01:04:55:13 - 01:04:58:09 Speaker 7 So but no, I mean, I think it's great progress. It's really interesting to. 01:04:58:09 - 01:05:00:03 Speaker 8 See how it's developing. 01:05:00:23 - 01:05:02:16 Speaker 7 And yes, it's been great to be here. 01:05:03:07 - 01:05:19:10 Speaker 6 Thank you. And that was really good feedback. We're one community. I like that. See, right here we are. Anything you want to add? Any other comments? Otherwise, I'd like to let the. Oh, Mark. 01:05:19:10 - 01:05:27:18 Speaker 3 I have a question. I think at the beginning you had some timeline of the progress of this TV until potential launch. 01:05:27:24 - 01:05:33:22 Speaker 2 I 35 Is that ambitious. 01:05:33:22 - 01:05:54:16 Speaker 6 So that's he was asked I guess you could hear it he said there a timeline I think Joe showed that showed a 35 launch that's working through the decadal Survey process. So if you if the Decadal Survey recommends it as a designated observable, then you have a couple of years to go into formulation in pre formulation and formulation. 01:05:54:16 - 01:06:13:02 Speaker 6 It takes about five years to get a mission to fly at that point. And so just looking at all the gates in the next decade, that's about when you would want to target a launch or you would expect is that fair to say then? Do you have anything to add? 01:06:13:02 - 01:06:47:07 Speaker 3 Yeah, I think that was the origin. Right, Joe and Mark and answer to your question is yes, it I think it's ambitious to run, but you know, the for the current decadal period that designated observables of the Earth System Observatory, I think, you know, SPG got on to, you know, sort of the the the track towards being potentially the first doe in space. 01:06:47:16 - 01:07:15:16 Speaker 3 And that's now, you know, at 27, 28, 20, 27, 28 timeframe, it may have started closer to 25, 26. So, you know, we want to aim and if there's a little bit of, you know, slip to the right from there, that that's still, you know, a good, good outcome for the community. So I might see that before retirement. 01:07:17:04 - 01:07:23:01 Speaker 1 But I think the important thing is that Joe put that flag in the sand. So if we don't meet it, it's all his fault. 01:07:24:04 - 01:07:44:04 Speaker 6 So I do want to add that we have some time and we don't we don't start work when we become designated observable, assuming we do. And I think part of the motivation is let's get our act together and work as quickly and as thoroughly as we can so that we don't slip. And that's one reason for picking a senior person to be lead, because there's more motivation. 01:07:44:04 - 01:08:04:11 Speaker 6 Like Mark said. Any other thoughts, comments, questions wise? I'd love to have some closing thoughts from headquarters. Any of you, do you want to start? Yep. Good, Amber. 01:08:06:06 - 01:08:28:13 Speaker 8 All right. So following on the line on the question of the 2035 and yeah, I would share with Ben, I think that some that's that's ambitious, but that also helps. I mean, I wasn't sure when I saw that yesterday, but now thinking about that this is okay, now is the time for it. This is the whole point of DSI, right? 01:08:28:18 - 01:08:53:01 Speaker 8 The incubation, the time for the technology advancement is now. The time for and for that technology advancement need to really understand, know the science that's needed. So it's 2035 ambitious. Yes. But that really helps to put this whole community in the in the mindset of it's time to really start thinking about how we're going to move forward. Do we have all the answers right now? 01:08:53:09 - 01:09:05:10 Speaker 8 No. But that's that's what makes this fun and challenging problem, to try to find a solution to. 01:09:05:10 - 01:09:18:23 Speaker 6 Thank you, Mike. I really appreciate that. You stayed here the whole time. Did you want to say anything? 01:09:18:23 - 01:09:19:17 Speaker 3 I don't have too. 01:09:19:17 - 01:09:43:16 Speaker 2 Much to add. I think Amber kind of summed it up. I think this is useful to us to understand what the needs of the community are with the identifying the technology gaps. I like the tables that show the aspirational and the threshold values, the traceability matrices are extremely valuable to us. And again, we focus on the science needs. 01:09:43:16 - 01:10:12:20 Speaker 2 We're not trying to just push the technology, the existing technology forward because there could be something new that comes along later on. We saw this with 3D wins. You know, we solicited years for when lighter, but, you know, there are other ways of measuring the winds. So we found there were lower cost solutions. So if we if esto understands the needs of the community and, you know, for the early stage investments, please be ambitious. 01:10:14:11 - 01:10:21:21 Speaker 2 You know, it helps us make those investments. So thanks very much. 01:10:21:21 - 01:10:38:18 Speaker 6 Do you want to say anything, Barb? I just want to say I loved working with you. I'm very sad that you're retiring, but hopefully we'll keep seeing you. All right? You don't have to say anything, but you just say goodbye if you. 01:10:38:18 - 01:11:35:13 Speaker 3 Want a goodbye. Well, one other thing I wanted to reiterate in terms of timeline and next steps. You know, I mentioned this at the very beginning yesterday, but there will be a another roses, you know, call for proposals. You know, that's important to the community. You know, we're expecting that to come out later in 2024. And, you know, all the input from this meeting and in, you know, the coming months, well, you know, will help inform how we put that together to, you know, best advance the next steps for for us be so you know for for all of you as as we, you know, spin out webinars or, you know, other opportunities for engagement, 01:11:35:13 - 01:12:33:08 Speaker 3 you know, please keep that input coming because it will inform, you know, the near-term funding opportunities along with with all the rest. And, you know, otherwise, I think I'm just really happy with with the meeting, with the participation, engagement. I think we generally had over 100 people, you know, be here and online. And I think the discussion arc around, you know, the importance of a of a high resolution global snapshot, but the realization of of realism around, you know, working really focus what repeat observations are needed I think is actually seems really mature at this stage. 01:12:33:08 - 01:13:09:03 Speaker 3 There know there can be a tendency to get kind of stuck in everything, everywhere all the time and and to be stuck in that loop for for a long time, I think. So I really value that, that, you know, kind of refining of the strategy at this stage not, you know, not to to to diminish, you know, ambition and and certainly the value of of the repeat observations or process and so forth. 01:13:09:03 - 01:13:46:19 Speaker 3 But I think, you know, Bill Bill Dietrich's comment yesterday about how revolutionary a new, you know, high resolution, global team would be reaffirmed for me that we should work on the science, the earth science to action case for that base map, you know, as a foundation for us to be both for for the science and applications from STV as well as what it contributes, you know, as an underpinning for the USO and other missions, all of that. 01:13:46:19 - 01:14:27:20 Speaker 3 I think that's such a great, you know, cornerstone for, for this initiative. So yeah, I mean, I think that alone is, is a really important outcome. And then just so many great, you know, ideas about all the other stones that fit into that, that arch. And there are few other program scientists here too. I if if anyone else I think has been online the whole time and I want to put him on the spot, but he's been with us online the full two days and Cape Wind or Center here. 01:14:27:20 - 01:14:38:15 Speaker 3 So anybody else has anything to add, but I'll pass it along. 01:14:38:15 - 01:15:04:05 Speaker 4 And I was not here yesterday so I'm cross markers I managed was Caitlin the prize for exchange program and I manage system explorer I so to be crystal and so in so this is a next upcoming mission right and Mike said it's you know ambition is I think it's it's the right term here because you know, science would be the driver. 01:15:04:05 - 01:15:28:21 Speaker 4 And I'm expecting, you know, the scientists saying, you know, this is what we need to move science forward, think and be realistic and, you know, ambitious to some extent. You know, as a scientist, you know, you can be aggressive, right. We really need to to be able to measure the pace. And this is jointly funded by, you know, research and technology. 01:15:29:09 - 01:15:52:23 Speaker 4 So there's a real chance here if you know, these different science communities come together and say, hey, we need to do these things. And how Lisa talked about like, you know, being one community, if you speak with a loud voice, hey, we need to do this, then you know, there's a chance that we we masa invest in new technologies that make the next thing happen. 01:15:53:01 - 01:16:21:15 Speaker 4 There are so many things out there. When I when I hear Mike talk about quantum sensing, about, you know, there's some interesting concept on the radar world out there I think that's what I I personally you know what I would love to see what what does a community one and then have technology you know try to deliver this because you know innovative and visionary concepts that may be you know, realizable within the next ten. 01:16:21:15 - 01:16:41:08 Speaker 4 It's not a mission that, you know, there's no this unlike a system explorer. It's not like a proposal that needs to be written or face aid. It needs to start next year. This is a space that will start, you know, seven or eight years from now. You're talking about a launch date of 30, 35. So there's plenty of time. 01:16:41:08 - 01:17:00:02 Speaker 4 And, you know, I'm talking too much right? There's plenty of time. And and for it to be to make, you know, technological advances, to utilize technology, technological advances and that's kind of, my gosh, too much time. 01:17:01:02 - 01:17:09:06 Speaker 6 Back to Caitlyn. Want to say anything? Oh, no. Oh, what about Hank? Is he. 01:17:10:16 - 01:17:11:03 Speaker 3 Saying this? 01:17:11:03 - 01:17:15:23 Speaker 6 But I would say I want to just take yourself off. Mute or you're off. Go ahead. 01:17:16:11 - 01:17:17:11 Speaker 3 Jerry. Yep. 01:17:17:19 - 01:17:18:10 Speaker 6 Yes, we can. 01:17:19:07 - 01:17:49:12 Speaker 3 Okay. I guess I would just take the counterpoint to Thurston, and I feel like there's not a lot of time and a fairly pressing timeline to get things aligned for the next Decadal Survey. I hear a lot of really cool stuff, but I'm trying personally, I'm not that clear how this integrates into the Decadal Survey and how we make a convincing case for a designated observable. 01:17:50:06 - 01:18:06:01 Speaker 3 There is a lot of cool stuff out there, but there is a process of coming together and hopefully you will get a great team and all that. But that's something I just don't see yet. 01:18:10:13 - 01:18:11:10 Speaker 6 Can I respond. 01:18:11:22 - 01:18:12:07 Speaker 1 Please? 01:18:13:07 - 01:18:32:19 Speaker 6 So one of the things I've done is we have a ton of work. I agree with you completely. We're not going to build a rest for over a decade, but we've tried to get everybody on the same page, everybody to understand the mission process, because a lot of people outside Nyasa I don't think are so clear on it. 01:18:32:19 - 01:18:53:18 Speaker 6 And I like the saying things go slow, they go fast. So I feel like if we have a really good foundation, it will go faster in the long run. And I we're ready now to start doing these traceability matrices for real and making sure we pin down the science. So I'm also optimistic and also very aware of the amount of work that we have to do along those lines. 01:18:53:18 - 01:19:14:11 Speaker 6 I wanted to say I view the team as this time as a somewhat fuzzy boundary. And so we want a lot of community input views as your representatives. If you want some input, talk to whoever you know, that's that's on the team or the leads which are all listed on the STV decade old web page because we do need the input of the community. 01:19:14:11 - 01:19:20:19 Speaker 6 Oh yeah. Have anything more you want to say. Thank. 01:19:20:19 - 01:19:28:01 Speaker 3 No ma'am. 01:19:28:01 - 01:19:31:01 Speaker 1 I don't know. I'm just trying to think of how to end on a really high note. Now. 01:19:32:14 - 01:19:58:20 Speaker 6 I think we need to thank Janette, who's probably out in the hallway, and we need to thank Robert, who saved our day that today went so smoothly. Thank you so much, so it looks like Helen's getting. What are you putting on, Howard? You saved our bacon, too. Thank you so much. I don't know what we do without you and the menu. 01:19:58:20 - 01:20:26:24 Speaker 6 She's coming. Excellent. Thank you. So. And thanks to the team. I never felt that I wasn't getting what we needed to pull this meeting together. Everybody weighed in. I always push back. Joe and Mark had some comments about some of our initial architecture stuff. And you can go up here, Janette, we just wanted to thank you. Things get a lot better when people push back. 01:20:26:24 - 01:20:44:18 Speaker 6 So Please do. Janette, can you come up here so we can? Thank you. So Janette is the one. She started working at JPL in August. Within about a week or two, she had this venue secured when we had been told there were no venues in. Pasadena. We owe her a big thanks for making this happen. 01:20:45:18 - 01:20:53:13 Speaker 8 That's okay. I'm like, I'm very glad that you guys enjoyed it. I hope you enjoyed it, and hope. 01:20:53:13 - 01:20:54:11 Speaker 7 To see you next year. 01:20:55:01 - 01:21:05:22 Speaker 8 And I'm always an email away or a phone call, whatever you need. Always here to help. Thank you for coming. 01:21:05:22 - 01:21:29:08 Speaker 6 So last call. If not, I'm going to say thank you and adjourn. Thank you, everybody. Have a great travel home. We'll see some number of you tomorrow at JPL. And we'll it'll be hybrid again for the team members so they can call in if they're not physically here. For those that are visitors to JPL, make sure you get to the visitor center by 8 a.m. so that we can get you badged and escorted in. 01:21:30:15 - 01:21:38:18 Speaker 6 And if all the JPL ers could help needed the visitor center, we can get people escorted. That would be helpful. 01:21:38:18 - 01:21:39:01 Speaker 4 But. 01:21:41:05 - 01:21:48:05 Speaker 1 Is there been any thought about a follow up meeting to this? Should there be any expectation that people should put a placeholder in a calendar? 01:21:48:05 - 01:21:48:15 Speaker 2 Anything? 01:21:49:20 - 01:22:10:20 Speaker 6 Yes, there should. A follow up meeting. We're going to talk about that tomorrow. How we want it. Yeah, let's talk. Because I don't know. We'll figure it out as a team tomorrow and then we'll get a save the date out as quickly as we can. Thanks. All right. We're going to end the WebEx and turn the mikes off.