Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
-
Similar Topics
-
By NASA
Earth Observer Earth Home Earth Observer Home Editor’s Corner Feature Articles Meeting Summaries News Science in the News Calendars In Memoriam More Archives 27 min read
Summary of the Third Annual AEOIP Workshop
Introduction
The Applied Earth Observations Innovation Partnership (AEOIP) was established in 2018 to facilitate knowledge coproduction and optimization of NASA Earth observations that can be used by natural resource managers for decision making. Through continued iteration and reflection, coproduction brings together stakeholders to share responsibilities and the completion of activities towards a common goal. AEOIP enables strong collaborations between NASA and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), along with growing participation from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other federal land management agencies.
AEOIP has held several previous meetings: the first was a Joint Applications Workshop on Satellite Data for Natural Resource Management held April 29–May 2, 2019, reported in an Earth Observer article, “Summary of the USFS–NASA Joint Applications Workshop on Satellite Data for Natural Resource Management.” The group met again virtually in 2020 during PitchFest. In 2022, a virtual workshop on Integrating Remote Sensing Data for Land Management Decision-Making took place March 23–24, 2022. In 2023, the AEOIP workshop took place April 25–27, 2023, with a hybrid format – the in-person participants met at the USFS Geospatial Technology and Applications Center (GTAC) in Salt Lake City, UT. The 2023 workshop focused on Addressing Land & Water Monitoring Needs Using Remote Sensing Data.
These workshops have been designed to build connections between participants across the research-to-applications spectrum with subject matter experts from a variety of federal agencies and other affiliations to continue to promote interagency collaboration within the Earth Observations (EO) applications field. This goal is accomplished using interactive panels and guided discussion sessions that highlight new tools and techniques, promote NASA EO data product uptake, and foster connections between data providers and data users.
2024 Workshop Overview
The most recent AEOIP workshop took place April 23–25, 2024, with a hybrid format. The in-person participants met in Ann Arbor, MI. The three-day event had a similar structure to its predecessors but with a wildland fire management theme. Altogether, 135 people participated in the workshop, with 77 attending in person and 58 virtually – see Photo 1.
Photo 1. Participants at the 2024 AEOIP workshop. Photo credit: AEOIP Meeting Objectives
The workshop objectives were to:
meet AEOIP’s mission by providing a forum for building new relationships among Earth observations data providers, users, and stakeholders; gather and/or codevelop “shovel-ready” ideas to better leverage Earth observations to meet science and management priorities of U.S. land and natural resource management agencies; gather needs for and/or develop educational materials to support the use of existing EO training resources for fire management; and gather ideas for the 2025 workshop and other AEOIP activities. Breakout Sessions
A large segment of this workshop was dedicated to four concurrent topical breakout sessions – referred to in this report as Breakout Sessions A–D. The topics covered in each breakout session are listed below, along with the name(s) of those who facilitated discussion.
Breakout Session A: Fuels, Wildland Fire Emissions, Carbon & Climate – Andy Hudak [USFS] and Edil Sepulveda Carlo [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science Systems and Applications Inc. (SSAI)]; Breakout Session B: Prescribed Fire Planning & Management – Nancy French [Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI)], Birgit Peterson [USGS], and Jessica Meisel [University of Idaho]; Breakout Session C: Fractional Vegetation Cover Products & Decision Making – Tim Assal and Jake Slyder [both U.S. Department of Interior, BLM], and Liz Hoy and Amanda Armstrong [both at GSFC]; and Alexis O’Callahan [University of Arkansas]. Breakout Session D: Post-fire Effects & Recovery: Assess, Predict, Remediate, and Monitor – Mary Ellen Miller [MTRI]. All of the breakout groups met on each day of the meeting. On the morning of the first day, the facilitators of each group gave brief “elevator pitches” about each breakout topic, and participants selected a topic for focus. After that, a block of time each day was dedicated to breakout activities and discussions. Participants were asked to focus on different aspects of the topic each day. In the afternoon of the first day, each group focused on identifying needs and challenges in the area being discussed – with a brief report-out at the end of the day. On the afternoon of the second day, the focus was on data availability and solutions – i.e., finding ways to overcome obstacles to making data more readily available to users – again with a brief report- out at the end of the day. On the morning of the third day, there were topical presentations. Each group worked to synthesize their three days of discussions and chose a representative to give a summary report during the closing plenary later that morning.
Workshop Summary
The remainder of this article presents highlights from each day of the workshop. This includes the most important presentations given during the meeting and those given during the breakout sessions. The report also includes highlights from training breakouts given on the second day of the workshop and a summary of a prescribed fire field trip, which took place the day before the workshop and visited two locations – see Optional “Field Trip” for AEOIP Workshop Participants to learn more.
Optional “Field Trip” for AEOIP Workshop Participants
On April 22, 2024, an optional field trip was offered that featured two sites demonstrating prescribed fire in Michigan. For the first stop on the trip, Kevin Butler [Washtenaw County—Natural Areas Preservation Program Stewardship Supervisor] gave a tour of a prescribed fire site in Park Lyndon, a county park in the northwest part of Washtenaw County, MI. The park is being restored to maintain native species using prescribed fire as invasive species control. The intent of these efforts is to restore oak meadows and preserve over 500 species of plants across fens, marshes, ponds, forest, and prairie lands.
On the second leg of the trip, Tina Stephens [City of Ann Arbor—Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator] led a tour of Furstenberg Nature Area, in the city of Ann Arbor, MI. She highlighted the importance of prescribed burning to achieve ecological benefits. The 0.15-km2 (38-acre) park contains wetlands, woodlands, prairie, and oak savanna. Since the mid-1990’s, Natural Area Preservation staff and volunteers have maintained those ecosystems through controlled burns and invasive shrub removal. The second tour stop included a small prescribed fire demonstration – see Photo 2.
Photo 2. Ann Arbor park staff conduct a prescribed fire demonstration for workshop participants during the Furstenberg Nature Area tour portion of the AEOIP field trip. Photo credit: Joseph Paki DAY ONE
On the first day, Kira Sullivan-Wiley [Pew Institute] gave a plenary presentation, in which she discussed the value of coproduction, which in the context of AEOIP can be described as honoring the generative capacity of others as a means of optimizing the use of Earth by natural resource managers for decision making – see Photo 3. The benefits of this approach include cost reduction, tracking new ideas, and empowering marginalized voices.
The first block of breakout sessions also occurred during the afternoon of the first day, along with a short report-out. In light of the keynote discussion on coproduction, deliverables from this meeting’s breakout sessions can be seen as coproduced, new or improved conduits between NASA and land-managing entities.
After the keynote, representatives of government agencies (NASA, USFS, and BLM) presented their respective agency’s perspectives. The manager of a nearby state park in Michigan followed with a local perspective. A series of short presentations in the late afternoon featured various program highlights from NASA’s Earth Science Division, which are not detailed in this report – see workshop agenda for list of programs and speakers.
Notable Presentations
In addition to Kira Sullivan–Wiley’s keynote (described above), Christina Moats-Xavier [NASA Headquarters, Earth Action Program—Program Manager for Mission Engagement] shared NASA’s perspective, focusing on NASA’s Earth Science-to-Action strategy, which aims to increase the impact of scientific data. NASA’s Applied Science Program is now included under the broader umbrella of the new Earth Action program element of NASA’s Earth Science Division. This strategy has three pillars: 1) scaling existing efforts; 2) building bridges; and 3) focusing on the user. By collaborating with NASA, AEOIP can address real-world challenges to develop solutions that benefit society. Overall, the presentations on the first day highlighted the importance of collaborative, user-centered approaches and community engagement in addressing environmental challenges.
Everett Hinkley and Frenchy Morisette [both USFS] provided a practitioner’s perspective. They discussed USFS efforts to address climate adaptation, wildfire management, and incorporation of Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge. They also emphasized the application of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) for mapping and remote sensing tools.
Both Jake Slyder and Tim Assal described their respective government agency’s management of vast (mostly western) land areas and use of remote sensing for post-fire emergency stabilization and integration with the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program.
Kevin Butler offered more of a local perspective as he discussed land stewardship in Michigan. He emphasized the importance of community involvement and respecting natural ecosystems, especially fire-dependent ones, at the local level.
Photo 3. Kira Sullivan-Wiley [Pew Institute] presents on co-production of knowledge during the first day’s plenary session. Photo credit: AEOIP DAY TWO
The presentations on the second day of the workshop highlighted the opportunities that Earth observing satellite data presents for natural resource management applications. Five presenters contributed to the panel discussion, titled “Communicating and Soliciting End User Needs: Past, Present and Future.” The second – longer – block of breakout sessions also occurred with a short report-out at the end of the day. A poster session ran concurrently with the report-outs. While this session is not described in this report, it afforded participants an opportunity to showcase their Earth observation related projects and/or interact with their peers. Highlights from the day follow below.
Notable Presentations
Pontus Olafsson [NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center] and Natasha Sadoff [NASA HQ—Satellite Needs Program Manager] presented on the Satellite Needs Working Group (SNWG), which provides a coordinated approach to identify and communicate federal satellite Earth observation needs and develop solutions based on Earth observation data. The speakers explained that as part of this effort, SNWG facilitates a biannual survey to all civilian federal agencies. SNWG provides federal agencies a path to coordinate Earth observing needs and a mechanism to develop actionable solutions for decision makers. Solutions cover thematic areas, including air quality, land use/land cover, and water resources. They noted that NASA is also making a greater effort to engage with agency partners in the co-development of new solutions that are useful, accessible, and actionable.
Alison York [University of Alaska Fairbanks] spoke about the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) and Fire Science Exchange Network (FSEN). JFSP’s main function is to maintain and grow a data repository and community based on fuels, fire behavior, fire ecology, and human dimensions. The goal is to help enable informed, actionable change by policy makers and land managers with the best available scientific support. York then discussed the FSEN, which acts as a mechanism to collate research needs from a collection of regional fire exchanges. The syntheses of data and data needs provides more effective understanding and management of fire.
Training Breakout Session Takeaways
On the second day, the four breakout sessions met, beginning with four short (25-minute) trainings. The speakers each gave half-hour presentations, which they repeated twice during the hour dedicated to the training breakouts, allowing participants to engage in two of the training breakouts if desired.
Pete Robichaud [USFS] discussed training opportunities for modeling post-fire hydrological response using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). Soil burn severity is first assessed with remote sensing and then field verified. A subsequent soil burn severity map can be created to give details on physical features, e.g., ash color, ash depth, fine roots, soil structure, water repellency, and ground cover. This resource can be used to create a risk assessment table of probability and consequence parameters. Following the risk assessment, the Forest Service Water WEPP suite of tools can be used to model the landscape. The WEPP suite includes both hillslope and watershed modeling tools. The final step in the Burned Area for Emergency Response (BAER) program is to implement and monitor solutions.
Rupesh Shretha [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC)] discussed the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) DAACs, which are collocated with centers of science discipline expertise and archive and distribute NASA Earth Science data products. The ORNL DAAC archives and distributes terrestrial ecology data, particularly data from field and airborne campaigns. The Terrestrial Ecology Subsetting & Visualization Services (TESViS) – formerly MODIS–VIIRS subsets tool – provide subsets of satellite data in easy-to-use formats that are particularly valuable for site-based field research. The Ecological Spectral Information System (ECOSIS) integrates spectral data with measurements of vegetation functional traits (i.e., species, foliar chemistry). ECOSIS allows users to submit spectral data and return a citable DOIs. ECOSIS also provides users application programming interface (API)-based methods to retrieve thousands of field spectra.
Jake Slyder discussed the use of remote sensing for efficient resource management over vast tracts of land with limited human and financial resources. He explained that while the vast collection of remotely sensed data makes it challenging to effectively exploit, Google Earth Engine (GEE) has become an important tool in leveraging remotely sensed information to address BLM management questions. The Change and Disturbance Event Detection Tool (CDEDT), a GEE-based application, allows users to detect and develop vector geospatial products to identify changes and disturbances to surface cover between two dates of observations [10 m (~33 ft) resolution] from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission. Slyder said that the Version 2 (V2) beta product includes the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) and ESA Copernicus Sentinel-1 SAR Imagery. CDEDT supports a range of BLM monitoring applications, including disaster events, energy development, forest disturbances, and seasonal patterns and processes (e.g., vegetation, water cover). The CDEDT tool is publicly available and does not require any license or special software.
DAY THREE
The third day was dedicated to the final block of the breakout sessions and a final plenary, where a representative from each breakout group gave five to seven minute summaries of their discussions throughout the meeting. The overview was followed by a meeting wrap-up and adjournment. The sections below summarize the topical presentations given on day three and encapsulate the three days of discussions.
Breakout Session A: Focus on Carbon
The carbon breakout aimed to inform participants about carbon-related EO initiatives and spark discussion about user needs.
Aaron Piña [USFS] spoke about the Forest Service’s broad base of applied research that spans wildfire weather and behavior to dynamics of the smoke produced – see Photo 2. Recent assessments have been made for wildland fire, controlled burn smoke, and remote air monitors. Piña spoke about Bluesky Playground, a community-driven tool aimed at providing the public with information on fuels and smoke modeling. These data have been used to identify important indicators for fires and fuels (e.g., vertical plume structure).
Piña then discussed a fusion Fire Radiative Power (FRP) data product [MOD19A2] that combines data from four sources – the Visible and Infrared Scanner (VIRS) on the former Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on the Terra and Aqua platforms, and the Multi-Angle Implementation of Atmospheric Correction (MAIAC) aerosol product.
A group discussion followed Piña’s presentation, during which several participants expressed concerns about the continuity of VIIRS and the other observations that are used in the fusion FRP product. Another topic of discussion was the potential of remotely sensed data to improve the characterization of duff (decaying vegetation) in satellite data products. NASA’s Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (TEMPO) mission data have also been used to characterize the vertical structure of smoke plumes; however, these efforts have thus far been limited by personnel knowledge gaps as well as raw data formats.
Chris Woodall [USFS] discussed the growing emphasis on carbon metrics for a variety of sectors and applications. The USFS wants to work in tandem with other entities, especially federal organizations, to maximize efforts and workstream. USFS is seen as the in-situ carbon observer, while NASA is the remote sensor, and USGS is the lateral flux assessor. The coproduction of knowledge and data regarding carbon among these agencies is an iterative process. The USFS investment in improved Measurement, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MMRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG), for example, can expand soil and land-use inventories to improve alignment with remote-sensing platforms. Challenges to implementing this cooperative approach to collecting carbon metrics include creating a workflow that incorporates a wealth of existing resources and accruing data from multiple federal agencies concerned with ecosystem carbon management to create scalable GHG knowledge. The coproduction, iteration, and dissemination of knowledge should be a major focus with all interested parties – not just the aforementioned federal agencies.
Sydney Neugebauer [NASA’s Langley Research Center] and Melanie Follette-Cook [GSFC] discussed NASA’s capacity building initiatives, which are aimed at developing and strengthening an organization or community’s skills, abilities, processes, and resources to enable them to survive, adapt, and thrive in a fast changing world. The DEVELOP, Indigenous Peoples Initiative, and SERVIR programs (all under the Earth Action program element) work towards capacity building through co-development projects, collaborative training, and data availability. The NASA Applied Remote Sensing Training (ARSET) program has offered over 100,000 training sessions since it was created in 2009 – primarily to international participants. The trainings are free and virtual for individuals interested in using remotely sensed data in a diverse suite of environmental applications. All content is archived. NASA’s Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA), which has contributed to global carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration datasets for the past 30-years, will be upgraded to incorporate CO2 fluxes. The NASA cooperative interagency U.S. Greenhouse Gas Center is also looking for feedback on its beta portal.
The group discussions that followed identified and addressed AEOIP needs and questions (e.g., obtaining carbon and smoke emission estimates from prescribed wildfires and ensuring global satellite fire record continuity). Participants also identified the need for near real-time active fire and burned area mapping at medium scale and for continuity of these measurements. The group is interested in engaging federal agency end users to obtain feedback on their capacity to facilitate and elucidate capacity needs. Prominent challenges going forward include preparing for the end of the Terra and Aqua missions, which will include the decommissioning of MODIS, and ensuring the continuity of VIIRS, which is being used to allow for continuity of MODIS data products. One of the greatest unknowns identified was being able to determine wildfire fuel conditions in near-real time, and the ability to constrain estimates of fuel attributes to a focused fire event.
Andy Hudak discussed the diverse coalition of practitioners who manage more than just carbon (e.g., forest health, harvest, fires). Of the diverse group of stakeholders, Indigenous Tribes are at the cutting edge using lidar for carbon assessment. While Forest Inventory and Analysis plots are used for bias correction, they do not provide synoptic coverage for accurate carbon assessments. Lidar and other passive remote sensing satellite data provide a way to address this need. Tree lists are also highly valuable to carbon and forest managers for diverse applications. Application-specific metrics (e.g., timber volume, basal area, and density) can be weighted based on stakeholder priorities, as quantified from stakeholder surveys, to optimize data products.
Sarah Lewis [USFS] explained the needs and applications of Earth observations in a post-fire environment. The information needs to be available quickly, integrated into effective decision-making tools, and delivered in a functional product. Information is needed on water, soils, vegetation recovery, and habitat – all major metrics of interest in a data product. Areas of concern during post-fire management for water quality and erosion control include ash and soil–water transport. In addition, major concerns exist for timely data acquisition and processing, along with the fate and transport mapping of post-fire ash. Data products would benefit from end-user input to optimize relevance and accessibility of decision ready maps, models, and trusted recommendations.
The group identified the need for heavy carbon fuels and duff estimates for ecological modeling, which is critical to achieving a better understanding of smoke and carbon emissions. The heavy carbon fuel and duff estimates may be achieved through multiple means but may be most accessible currently through a new layer in the LANDFIRE database. They also identified the need for more post-fire data for model training and integration of active remote sensing data. Finally, the group identified the need for more regulation and research on prescribed fire emissions and disturbance.
Breakout Session B: Prescribed Fire
This breakout session focused on prescribed fires. Some of the major objectives and needs that emerged from this session were improved access to data, cultivating deeper public trust in the practice, creating networks of future coproduction, and assessing end-user needs, burn maps, and securing funding. The discussions emphasized knowledge and awareness gaps as a major impediment to prescribed fire implementation. Uniform capacity building is an ideal approach to engage stakeholders at a reference level appropriate to their background to optimize equity and efficacy.
Another issue that came up during discussion is that land management professionals do not have the time or resources to stay current with data sources and analysis techniques. The participants suggested the creation of a “Fire Science Library” as an iterative data tool to organize and present fire knowledge in an actionable and streamlined manner for public land managers. The interface would allow practitioners to filter unique categories (e.g., role, scope, region, ecosystem type, weather, agency affiliation) to provide the ability to search, modify, and maintain fire science knowledge as it evolves. This interface would also provide provenance through references to papers, justification for methods, and case studies. The library would guide and streamline data collection, analyses, and interpretation workflows that are needed for holistic prescribed fire planning and monitoring based on tangible needs from fire professionals.
The virtual library tool would provide a user with a fire-science knowledge graph, which is an organized representation of real-world entities and their relationships that could quickly connect fire-related management with current research questions concerning data products, processing methods, and data sources along with references and case studies. Information provided in the knowledge graph would need to be context specific but not overly prescriptive to avoid constraining users to a rigid workflow that is more common in basic data portals. Knowledge graphs are associated with semantic web technology that forms a modern version of a database. The tool establishes relationships between entities that promote new relationship discovery, search, and modification. It also provides a foundation on which other applications can be built, such as prescribed fires in the southeast and incorporating drone data. Focusing on prescribed fire may help to bound the initial product development but leave the door open for eventual expansion for wildfire.
The group identified objectives moving forward, including the need to finalize the main set of prescribed fire management questions (e.g., planning, implementation, pre/post monitoring), establish user personas based on known representatives and gaps, engage the Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP), identify cluster members (e.g., subject matter experts from local and federal agencies, private industry, and academia/research), and investigate additional funding sources. (Clusters are agile working groups within ESIP formed to focus on specific topics.)
Breakout Session C: Fractional Vegetation Cover
This breakout session focused on fractional vegetation cover (FVC) – see Photo 4. The presenters introduced three large FVC assessment efforts, and the participants contributed to a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of FVC products intended to improve the use of this data by decision makers – see Table.
Photo 4. [left to right] Amanda Armstrong, Elizabeth Hoy [both at Goddard Space Flight Center], and Timothy Assal [Bureau of Land Management] collaborating during the Fractional Vegetation Cover Breakout. Photo credit: AEOIP Tim Assal discussed the BLM’s Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) strategy. He explained that AIM has nearly 60,000 monitoring locations across the terrestrial uplands, aquatic systems, and riparian and wetland habitat of the U.S., and the data collected are being used for monitoring and restoration activities. Assai added that integration of remote sensing data with field plot data enables the generation of continuous datasets (e.g., FVC that can relate field plot-level indicators to those based on remote-sensing). He also reported that FVC data are currently being used to address numerous management decisions.
Sarah McCord [USDA] discussed V3 of the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP). McCord explained that V3 uses vegetation cover and rangeland production data to monitor these parameters. The model also uses species composition data. She explained that there are approximately 85,000 training/validation locations across the U.S. that have been incorporated into the modeling process. She said that enhancements to future versions of RAP are expected as data from new satellite instruments, field plots, and deep learning (i.e., application of AI/ML techniques) are all incorporated into the model. McCord chairs a working group that is actively investigating sources of error and uncertainty within individual and across different FVC products.
Matt Rigge [USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center] discussed V3 of the Rangeland Condition Monitoring Assessment and Projection (RCMAP), which will provide current and future condition using Landsat time series. Data available includes cover maps and potential cover. The platform uses various training data in addition to AIM plot data. In the future RCMAP plans to incorporate data from synthetic NASA-Indian Space Research Organization Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), from NASA’s Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source (EMIT) mission, and from convolution neural network-based (CNN) algorithms.
Bo Zhou [University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)] discussed V2 of the Landscape Cover Analysis and Reporting Tool (LandCART). V3 will be different and coming in the future. He explained that the BLM uses V3 to make legally defensible decisions. He then discussed the training data, which come mostly from AIM. The training dataset includes 71 Level-4 (L4) Ecoregions, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with at least 100 observations. Zhou noted that these training data are used to define spatial extent, the temporal extent is defined by available satellite imagery, and uncertainty estimates are based on CNN and random forest (RF) machine-learning algorithms.
Eric Jensen [Desert Research Institute] discussed how ClimateEngine.org uses cloud-based tools, such as GEE, to access, visualize, and share Earth observation datasets to overcome computational limitations of big data in a real-time environment. It encompasses over 85 datasets, including RAP and RCMAP, and the group is working to add LandCART. Two core functionalities of the ClimateEngine app are producing maps and making graphs. Jensen provided a brief demonstration of the app using a juniper removal project in sage grouse habitat in southern Idaho.
Strengths
• Tools available for accessing and processing data are user-friendly and widely accessible, making it easy to compile, use, and display data for users of all expertise levels across a range of management activities.
• Tools provide a comprehensive view of an area, offering both current and retrospective insights that are highly regarded by the restoration community.
• Tool format supports integration of new datasets, ensuring inclusivity and consistency over time and space. Weaknesses
• Training data exhibits spatial and temporal biases.
• Training data is biased towards federal data, lacking global representation.
• Sensors have limitations for both temporal and spatial accuracy. Opportunities
• Managers can use these tools to make informed decisions and evaluate the effectiveness of their treatments.
• Additional training (e.g., training in how to process new data types, such as hyperspectral data) could institutionalize remote sensing and reach more end users.
• Future expansion of AI/ML techniques and cloud-based services could reduce error, enhance data quality, and increase user reach. Threats
• Stability of funding could threaten continuity of measurements.
• Falling into a “one size fits all” mentality could stifle innovation.
• Variation in land management organizations’ willingness to update data and lack of cohesion could prevent obtaining full potential of FVC.
• Transition from research to operations could hinder collaboration and tool development and weaken the community of practice.
• Poor performance, misuse of information, and data sovereignty could diminish the community’s trust in the tools.
• Rapid technological advancements could displace smaller businesses. Table. Results of a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the current state of Fractional Vegetation Cover (FVC) data analysis tools and techniques. Breakout Session D: Post-fire Effects and Recovery
This session focused on assessing, predicting, remediating, and monitoring areas in the aftermath of fires. The focus was on “shovel-ready” ideas, such as improving operational soil burn severity maps to connect post-fire ground conditions and soil properties. The participants highlighted the need to leverage information (e.g., active fire thermal data) to better detect changes in post-fire cover and soil properties. Such information would be beneficial to USFS’s Burned Area for Emergency Response (BAER) program as well as to researchers, data providers, decision makers, and community leaders. The group discussed steps that would aid in this collaboration (e.g., incorporating thermal imagery into mapping soil burn severity, developing and validating products, getting first-look data to field teams, monitoring threats by conducting rapid burn severity assessment before official soil burn severity maps are made available, and sharing outputs quickly with decision makers).
The breakout participants also noted the challenge of ash load mapping, which they suggested might be constrained by using information on pre-fire fuels (e.g., biomass, understory, and canopy vegetation) to constrain potential ash production. Derived information products [e.g., Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Leaf Area Index (LAI), LANDFIRE fuels layers, and RAP] may improve this process. The group noted the limitations of the VIIRS instrument for mapping fire duration and soil heating. The group proposed adding supplemental data through the use of National Infrared Operations (NIROPS) raw infrared imagery – see Figure 1.
Fire tools currently available – and under consideration for improving maps – include VIIRS active fire data through NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), fire event tracking through NASA’s Earth Information System Fire Event Data Suite (FEDS), the burn severity prediction model at MTRI, and Rapid Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio Mapping at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The group identified VIIRS L1 image capture to detect smoldering fires as a potential improvement in wildfire characterization. The group also suggested more frequent observations of moderate resolution satellites, GOES Integration [0.5–2 km (0.3–1.2 mi) spatial resolution], and comprehensive field data. They identified possible ways to improve post-fire soil burn severity maps (e.g., information on pre-fire fuels, soil characteristics, and thermal properties, such as fire heating, residence time, spread rate), optical characteristic (e.g., vegetation mortality, ash production), and lidar canopy metrics.
Presently, burn severity is assessed using a simple spectral index derived from remote sensing data, driven by necessity, data access, and computing power. The group presented the need to break this single number into ecologically meaningful components for better post-fire assessment and remediation. Improvements could involve incorporating additional information (e.g., peak soil temperature, heat residence time, and fuel moisture). Coupling atmospheric fire behavior models could address temporal gaps, necessitating high-spatial and temporal resolution thermal data sets.
The participants agreed that future strategies should include monitoring warmer areas and smoldering zones instead of just flaming fronts, as well as exploring temperature differences across burn severities. Additionally, post-fire assessments would benefit from using other spectral bands and post-fire Ecosystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on Space Station (ECOSTRESS) products. They also added that access to more field information is crucial for scientific post-fire observations. Efforts are underway to make the SBS S123 survey system a national standard, though surveys currently reside with local units that have good record-keeping practices.
Figure 1. Optical [left and right] and thermal [right, overlay] images of participants at the 2024 AEOIP workshop obtained by an unpiloted aerial vehicle (UAV). Image credit: Colin Brooks Conclusion
The 2024 AEOIP workshop addressed a wide range of geospatial data tool and training needs and forums. The meeting centered on coproduction of knowledge and community-of-practice building as key needs for the geospatial data topics. Participants identified capacity building – through awareness, accessibility, and utility of data and tools – as the top priority for processing and technological advancement initiatives.
The breakout session topics selected (e.g., carbon concentrations, wildfires, prescribed fires, and landscape dynamics) were chosen to promote dialogue between data users and scientists, leading to plans for action and change in data and tool utility in four areas of interest for land managers. Following the meeting, the organizers submitted a spreadsheet detailing the data and tool needs identified during the breakouts to the Earth Action Program. The SNWG has also been made aware of the most compelling needs that participants identified. The AEOIP believes that by bridging two groups – data users and research and development – it will be possible to bolster user provenance and efficacy of NASA resources moving forward.
Severin Scott
Washington State University
severin.scott@wsu.edu
Alan B. Ward
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Global Science and Technology (GST)
alan.b.ward@nasa.gov
Alexis O’Callahan
University of Arkansas
aocallah@uark.edu
Share
Details
Last Updated Jan 03, 2025 Related Terms
Earth Science View the full article
-
By NASA
As 1969, an historic year that saw not just one but two successful human lunar landings, drew to a close, NASA continued preparations for its planned third Moon landing mission, Apollo 13, then scheduled for launch on March 12, 1970. The Apollo 13 prime crew of Commander James A. Lovell, Command Module Pilot (CMP) Thomas K. “Ken” Mattingly, and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) Fred W. Haise, and their backups John W. Young, John L. “Jack” Swigert, and Charles M. Duke, continued intensive training for the mission. NASA announced the selection of the Fra Mauro region of the Moon as the prime landing site for Apollo 13, favored by geologists because it forms an extensive geologic unit around Mare Imbrium, the largest lava plain on the Moon. The Apollo 13 Saturn V rolled out to its launch pad.
Apollo 11
The Apollo 11 astronauts meet Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, left, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Image courtesy of The Canadian Press. The Apollo 11 astronauts meet with Québec premier ministre Jean Lesage in Montréal. Image courtesy of Archives de la Ville de Montreal. Apollo 11 astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin E. “Buzz” Aldrinhad returned from their Giantstep Presidential goodwill tour on Nov. 5, 1969. Due to scheduling conflicts, a visit to Canada could not be included in the same time frame as the rest of the tour, so the astronauts made a special trip to Ottawa and Montreal on Dec. 2 and 3, meeting with local officials.
Apollo 11 astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, left, and comedian Bob Hope perform for the troops in Korat, Thailand. Armstrong, in blue flight suit, shakes hands with servicemen in Long Binh, South Vietnam. Armstrong, left, and Hope entertain the crowd in Cu Chi, South Vietnam. Armstrong joined famed comedian Bob Hope’s USO Christmas tour in December 1969. He participated in several shows at venues in South Vietnam, Thailand, and Guam, kidding around with Hope and answering questions from the assembled service members. He received standing ovations and spent much time shaking hands with the troops. The USO troupe also visited the hospital ship U.S.S. Sanctuary (AH-17) stationed in the South China Sea.
Apollo 12
For the first time in nearly four weeks, on Dec. 10, Apollo 12 astronauts Charles “Pete” Conrad, Richard F. Gordon, and Alan L. Bean stepped out into sunshine and breathed unfiltered air. Since their launch on Nov. 14, 1969, the trio had traveled inside their spacecraft for 10 days on their mission to the Moon and back, wore respirators during their recovery in the Pacific Ocean, stayed in the Mobile Quarantine Facility during the trip from the prime recovery ship U.S.S. Hornet back to Houston, and lived in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. Like the Apollo 11 crew before them, Conrad, Gordon, and Bean exhibited no symptoms of any infections with lunar microorganisms and managers declared them fit to be released from quarantine. MSC Director Robert L. Gilruth, other managers, and a crowd of well-wishers greeted Conrad, Gordon, and Bean.
Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center, now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Robert R. Gilruth and others greet Apollo 12 astronaut Charles “Pete” Conrad as he emerges from his postflight quarantine. Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center, now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Robert R. Gilruth and others greet Apollo 12 astronaut Richard F. Gordon as he emerges from his postflight quarantine. Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center, now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Robert R. Gilruth and others greet Apollo 12 astronaut Alan L. Bean as he emerges from his postflight quarantine. Addressing the crowd gathered outside the LRL, Conrad commented that “the LRL was really quite pleasant,” but all three were glad to be breathing non man-made air! While the men went home to their families for a short rest, work inside the LRL continued. Scientists began examining the first of the 75 pounds of rocks returned by the astronauts as well as the camera and other hardware they removed from Surveyor 3 for effects of 31 months exposed to the harsh lunar environment. Preliminary analysis of the TV camera that failed early during their first spacewalk on the lunar surface indicated that the failure was due to partial burnout of the Videocon tube, likely caused by the crew accidentally pointing the camera toward the Sun. Other scientists busied themselves with analyzing the data returning from the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) instruments Conrad and Bean deployed on the lunar surface. Mission planners examining the photographs taken from lunar orbit of the Fra Mauro area were confident that the next mission, Apollo 13, would be able to make a safe landing in that geologically interesting site, the first attempt to land in the lunar highlands.
After taking their first steps in the sunshine, Apollo 12 astronauts Charles “Pete” Conrad, left, Alan L. Bean, and Richard F. Gordon address a large group of well-wishers outside the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. Bean, left, Gordon, and Conrad during their postflight press conference. Two days after leaving the LRL, Conrad, Gordon, and Bean held their postflight press conference in the MSC auditorium. Addressing the assembled reporters, the astronauts first introduced their wives as their “number one support team,” then provided a film and photo summary of their mission, and answered numerous questions. Among other things, the astronauts praised the spacesuits they wore during the Moon walks, indicating they worked very well and, looking ahead, saw no impediments to longer excursions on future missions. Their only concern centered around the ever-present lunar dust that clung to their suits, raising that as a potential issue for future lunar explorers.
Director of NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida Kurt H. Debus, right, presents Apollo 12 astronauts Charles “Pete” Conrad, left, Richard F. Gordon, and Alan L. Bean with photos of their launch. White House of the Apollo 12 astronauts and their wives with President Richard M. Nixon, First Lady Pat Nixon, and their daughter Tricia Nixon. Conrad, Gordon, and Bean returned to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida on Dec. 17, where their mission began more than a month earlier and nearly ended prematurely when lightning twice struck their Saturn V rocket. KSC Director Kurt H. Debus presented each astronaut with a framed photograph of their launch in front of 8,000 workers assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). Of their nearly ill-fated liftoff Conrad expressed his signature confidence, “Had we to do it again, I would launch exactly under the same conditions.” Guenter Wendt and his pad closeout team had collected a piece of grounding rod from the umbilical tower, cut it into three short pieces, mounted them with the inscription “In fond memory of the electrifying launch of Apollo 12,” and presented them to the astronauts. Three days later, President Richard M. Nixon and First Lady Pat Nixon welcomed Conrad, Gordon, and Bean and their wives Jane, Barbara, and Sue, respectively, to a dinner at the White House. After dinner, they watched a film about the Apollo 12 mission as well as the recently released motion picture Marooned about three astronauts stranded in space. President Nixon requested that the astronauts pay a visit to former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who for many years championed America’s space program, and brief him on their mission, which they did in January 1970.
The Alan Bean Day parade in Fort Worth. Apollo 12 astronaut Bean and his family deluged by shredded office paper during the parade in his honor in Fort Worth. Image credits: courtesy Fort Worth Star Telegram. On Dec. 22, the city of Fort Worth, Texas, honored native son Bean, with Conrad, Gordon, and their families joining him for the Alan Bean Day festivities. An estimated 150,000 people lined the streets of the city to welcome Bean and his crewmates, dumping a blizzard of ticker tape and shredded office paper on the astronauts and their families during the parade. City workers cleared an estimated 60 tons of paper from the streets after the event.
Apollo 13
The planned Apollo 13 landing site in the Fra Mauro region, in relation to the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites. Workers place the Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter over the Apollo 13 Lunar Module. On Dec. 10, 1969, NASA announced the selection of the Fra Mauro region of the Moon as the prime landing site for Apollo 13, located about 110 miles east of the Apollo 12 touchdown point. Geologists favored the Fra Mauro area for exploration because it forms an extensive geologic unit around Mare Imbrium, the largest lava plain on the Moon. Unlike the Apollo 11 and 12 sites located in the flat lunar maria, Fra Mauro rests in the relatively more rugged lunar highlands. The precision landing by the Apollo 12 crew and their extensive orbital photography of the Fra Mauro region gave NASA confidence to attempt a landing at Fra Mauro. Workers in KSC’s VAB had stacked the three stages of Apollo 13’s Saturn V in June and July 1969. On Dec. 10, they topped the rocket with the Apollo 13 spacecraft, comprising the Command and Service Modules (CSM) and the Lunar Module (LM) inside the Spacecraft LM Adapter. Five days later, the Saturn V exited the VAB and made the 3.5-mile journey out to Launch Pad 39A to begin a series of tests to prepare it for the launch of the planned 10-day lunar mission. During their 33.5 hours on the Moon’s surface, Lovell and Haise planned to conduct two four-hour spacewalks to set up the ALSEP, a suite of five investigations designed to collect data about the lunar environment after the astronauts’ departure, and to conduct geologic explorations of the landing site. Mattingly planned to remain in the CSM, conducting geologic observations from lunar orbit including photographing potential future landing sites.
Apollo 13 astronaut James A. Lovell trains on the deployment of the S-band antenna. Apollo 13 astronaut Fred W. Haise examines one of the lunar surface instruments. During the first of the two spacewalks, Apollo 13 Moon walkers Lovell and Haise planned to deploy the five ALSEP experiments, comprising:
Charged Particle Lunar Environment Experiment (CPLEE) – flying for the first time, this experiment sought to measure the particle energies of protons and electrons reaching the lunar surface from the Sun. Lunar Atmosphere Detector (LAD) – this experiment used a Cold Cathode Ion Gauge (CCIG) to measure the pressure of the tenuous lunar atmosphere. Lunar Heat Flow Experiment (LHE) – designed to measure the steady-state heat flow from the Moon’s interior. Passive Seismic Experiment (PSE) – similar to the device left on the Moon during Apollo 12, consisted of a sensitive seismometer to record Moon quakes and other seismic activity. Lunar Dust Detector (LDD) – measured the amount of dust deposited on the lunar surface. A Central Station provided command and communications to the ALSEP experiments, while a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator using heat from the radioactive decay of a Plutonium-238 sample provided uninterrupted power. Additionally, the astronauts planned to deploy and retrieve the Solar Wind Collector experiment to collect particles of the solar wind, as did the Apollo 11 and 12 crews before them. Apollo 13 astronauts James A. Lovell and Fred W. Haise during the geology field trip to lava fields on the Big Island of Hawaii. Apollo 13 astronauts James A. Lovell and Fred W. Haise during the geology field trip to lava fields on the Big Island of Hawaii. Apollo 13 astronauts James A. Lovell and Fred W. Haise during the geology field trip to lava fields on the Big Island of Hawaii. Apollo 13 astronauts Lovell, Haise, Young, and Duke participated in a geology training field trip between Dec. 17 and 20 on the Big Island of Hawaii. Geologist Patrick D. Crosland of the National Park Service in Hawaii provided the astronauts with a tour of recent volcanic eruption sites in the Kilauea area, with the thought that the Fra Mauro formation might be of volcanic origin. During several traverses in the Kilauea Volcano area, NASA geologists John W. Dietrich, Uel S. Clanton, and Gary E. Lofgren and US Geological Survey geologists Gordon A. “Gordie” Swann, M.H. “Tim” Hait, and Leon T. “Lee” Silver accompanied the astronauts. The training sessions honed the astronauts’ geology skills and refined procedures for collecting rock samples and for documentary photography.
Apollo 14
The Apollo 14 Command and Service Modules shortly after arriving in the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The Apollo 14 Lunar Module ascent stage shortly after arriving in the MSOB. S69-62154 001 Preparations for the fourth Moon landing mission, Apollo 14, continued as well. At the time tentatively planned for launch in July 1970, mission planners considered the Littrow area on the eastern edge of the Mare Serenitatis, characterized by dark material possibly of volcanic origin, as a potential landing site. Apollo 14 astronauts Commander Alan B. Shepard, CMP Stuart A. Roosa, and LMP Edgar D. Mitchell and their backups Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E. Evans, and Joe H. Engle had already begun training for their mission. At KSC’s Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB), the Apollo 14 CSM arrived from its manufacturer North American Rockwell in Downey, California, as did the two stages of the LM from the Grumman Aerospace and Engineering Company in Bethpage, New York, in November 1969. Engineers began tests of the spacecraft shortly after their arrival. The three stages of the Apollo 14 Saturn V were scheduled to arrive at KSC in January 1970.
To be continued …
News from around the world in December 1969:
December 2 – Boeing’s new 747 Jumbo Jet makes its first passenger flight, from Seattle to New York.
December 3 – George M. Low sworn in as NASA deputy administrator.
December 4 – A Boy Named Charlie Brown, the first feature film based on the Peanuts comic strip, is released to theaters for the first time.
December 7 – The animated Christmas special Frosty the Snowman, makes its television debut.
December 14 – The Jackson 5 make their first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show.
December 18 – The sixth James Bond film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, held its world premiere in London, with George Lazenby as Agent 007.
View the full article
-
By NASA
4 min read
Expanded AI Model with Global Data Enhances Earth Science Applications
On June 22, 2013, the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8 captured this false-color image of the East Peak fire burning in southern Colorado near Trinidad. Burned areas appear dark red, while actively burning areas look orange. Dark green areas are forests; light green areas are grasslands. Data from Landsat 8 were used to train the Prithvi artificial intelligence model, which can help detect burn scars. NASA Earth Observatory NASA, IBM, and Forschungszentrum Jülich have released an expanded version of the open-source Prithvi Geospatial artificial intelligence (AI) foundation model to support a broader range of geographical applications. Now, with the inclusion of global data, the foundation model can support tracking changes in land use, monitoring disasters, and predicting crop yields worldwide.
The Prithvi Geospatial foundation model, first released in August 2023 by NASA and IBM, is pre-trained on NASA’s Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 (HLS) dataset and learns by filling in masked information. The model is available on Hugging Face, a data science platform where machine learning developers openly build, train, deploy, and share models. Because NASA releases data, products, and research in the open, businesses and commercial entities can take these models and transform them into marketable products and services that generate economic value.
“We’re excited about the downstream applications that are made possible with the addition of global HLS data to the Prithvi Geospatial foundation model. We’ve embedded NASA’s scientific expertise directly into these foundation models, enabling them to quickly translate petabytes of data into actionable insights,” said Kevin Murphy, NASA chief science data officer. “It’s like having a powerful assistant that leverages NASA’s knowledge to help make faster, more informed decisions, leading to economic and societal benefits.”
AI foundation models are pre-trained on large datasets with self-supervised learning techniques, providing flexible base models that can be fine-tuned for domain-specific downstream tasks.
Crop classification prediction generated by NASA and IBM’s open-source Prithvi Geospatial artificial intelligence model. Focusing on diverse land use and ecosystems, researchers selected HLS satellite images that represented various landscapes while avoiding lower-quality data caused by clouds or gaps. Urban areas were emphasized to ensure better coverage, and strict quality controls were applied to create a large, well-balanced dataset. The final dataset is significantly larger than previous versions, offering improved global representation and reliability for environmental analysis. These methods created a robust and representative dataset, ideal for reliable model training and analysis.
The Prithvi Geospatial foundation model has already proven valuable in several applications, including post-disaster flood mapping and detecting burn scars caused by fires.
One application, the Multi-Temporal Cloud Gap Imputation, leverages the foundation model to reconstruct the gaps in satellite imagery caused by cloud cover, enabling a clearer view of Earth’s surface over time. This approach supports a variety of applications, including environmental monitoring and agricultural planning.
Another application, Multi-Temporal Crop Segmentation, uses satellite imagery to classify and map different crop types and land cover across the United States. By analyzing time-sequenced data and layering U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Crop Data, Prithvi Geospatial can accurately identify crop patterns, which in turn could improve agricultural monitoring and resource management on a large scale.
The flood mapping dataset can classify flood water and permanent water across diverse biomes and ecosystems, supporting flood management by training models to detect surface water.
Wildfire scar mapping combines satellite imagery with wildfire data to capture detailed views of wildfire scars shortly after fires occurred. This approach provides valuable data for training models to map fire-affected areas, aiding in wildfire management and recovery efforts.
Burn scar mapping generated by NASA and IBM’s open-source Prithvi Geospatial artificial intelligence model. This model has also been tested with additional downstream applications including estimation of gross primary productivity, above ground biomass estimation, landslide detection, and burn intensity estimations.
“The updates to this Prithvi Geospatial model have been driven by valuable feedback from users of the initial version,” said Rahul Ramachandran, AI foundation model for science lead and senior data science strategist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “This enhanced model has also undergone rigorous testing across a broader range of downstream use cases, ensuring improved versatility and performance, resulting in a version of the model that will empower diverse environmental monitoring applications, delivering significant societal benefits.”
The Prithvi Geospatial Foundation Model was developed as part of an initiative of NASA’s Office of the Chief Science Data Officer to unlock the value of NASA’s vast collection of science data using AI. NASA’s Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT), based at Marshall, IBM Research, and the Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum, Jülich, designed the foundation model on the supercomputer Jülich Wizard for European Leadership Science (JUWELS), operated by Jülich Supercomputing Centre. This collaboration was facilitated by IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society.
For more information about NASA’s strategy of developing foundation models for science, visit https://science.nasa.gov/artificial-intelligence-science.
Share
Details
Last Updated Dec 04, 2024 Related Terms
Earth Science & Research Explore More
9 min read Towards Autonomous Surface Missions on Ocean Worlds
Article
23 hours ago
5 min read NASA-Led Team Links Comet Water to Earth’s Oceans
Scientists find that cometary dust affects interpretation of spacecraft measurements, reopening the case for comets…
Article
23 hours ago
1 min read Coming Spring 2025: Planetary Defenders Documentary
ow would humanity respond if we discovered an asteroid headed for Earth? NASA’s Planetary Defenders…
Article
23 hours ago
Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics
Missions
Humans in Space
Climate Change
Solar System
View the full article
-
By NASA
On Nov. 16, 2009, space shuttle Atlantis began its 31st trip into space, on the third Utilization and Logistics Flight (ULF3) mission to the International Space Station, the 31st shuttle flight to the orbiting lab. During the 11-day mission, the six-member STS-129 crew worked with the six-person Expedition 21 crew during seven days of docked operations. The mission’s primary objectives included delivering two external logistics carriers and their spare parts, adding nearly 15 tons of hardware to the station, and returning a long-duration crew member, the last to return on a shuttle. Three of the STS-129 astronauts conducted three spacewalks to transfer spare parts and continue assembly and maintenance of the station. As a group of 12, the joint crews celebrated the largest and most diverse Thanksgiving gathering in space.
Left: Official photograph of the STS-129 crew of Leland D. Melvin, left, Charles O. Hobaugh, Michael J. Foreman, Robert “Bobby” L. Satcher, Barry “Butch” E. Wilmore, and Randolph “Randy” J. Bresnik. Middle: The STS-129 crew patch. Right: The ULF3 payload patch.
The six-person STS-129 crew consisted of Commander Charles O. Hobaugh, Pilot Barry “Butch” E. Wilmore, and Mission Specialists Randolph “Randy” J. Bresnik, Michael J. Foreman, Leland D. Melvin, and Robert “Bobby” L. Satcher. Primary objectives of the mission included launch and transfer to the station of the first two EXPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELC-1 and ELC-2) and their multiple spare parts, and the return of NASA astronaut and Expedition 20 and 21 Flight Engineer Nicole P. Stott, the last astronaut to rotate on the shuttle.
Left: In the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, workers finish processing Atlantis for STS-129. Right: Space shuttle Atlantis rolls over from the OPF to the Vehicle Assembly Building.
Left: Atlantis rolls out to Launch Pad 39A. Right: The STS-129 crew during the Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test.
Atlantis returned to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) from its previous mission, STS-125, on June 2, 2009, and workers towed it to the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) to prepare it for STS-129. The orbiter rolled over to the Vehicle Assembly Building on Oct. 6, and after mating with its external tank and twin solid rocket boosters, rolled out to Launch Pad 39A on Oct. 14, targeting a Nov. 16 launch. Six days later, the six-member crew participated in the Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test, essentially a dress rehearsal of the actual countdown for launch, returning to Houston for final training. They returned to KSC on Nov. 13 to prepare for launch.
Left: With Atlantis sitting on Launch Pad 39A, the Ares 1-X rocket lifts off from Launch Pad 39B. Right: The payload canister arrives at Launch Pad 39A.
Left: The STS-129 astronauts leave crew quarters for the ride to Launch Pad 39A. Right: Liftoff of space shuttle Atlantis on STS-129.
On Nov. 16, at 2:28 p.m. EST, space shuttle Atlantis lifted off from Launch Pad 39A to begin its 31st trip into space, carrying its six-member crew on the ULF3 space station outfitting and resupply mission. Eight and a half minutes later, Atlantis and its crew had reached orbit. The flight marked Hobaugh’s third time in space, having flown on STS-104 and STS-118, Foreman’s and Melvin’s second, having flown on STS-123 and STS-122, respectively, while Wilmore, Bresnik, and Satcher enjoyed their first taste of weightlessness.
Left: The two EXPRESS Logistics Carriers in Atlantis’ payload bay. Middle: Leland D. Melvin participates in the inspection of Atlantis’ thermal protection system. Right: The Shuttle Remote Manipulator System grasps the Orbiter Boom Sensor System for the inspection.
After reaching orbit, the crew opened the payload bay doors, deployed the shuttle’s radiators, and removed their bulky launch and entry suits, stowing them for the remainder of the flight. The astronauts spent six hours on their second day in space conducting a detailed inspection of Atlantis’ nose cap and wing leading edges, with Hobaugh, Wilmore, Melvin, and Bresnik taking turns operating the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS), or robotic arm, and the Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS).
Left: The International Space Station as seen from Atlantis during the rendezvous and docking maneuver. Middle: Atlantis as seen from the space station, showing the two EXPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELC) in the payload bay. Right: View of the space station from Atlantis during the rendezvous pitch maneuver, with the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System grasping ELC-1 in preparation for transfer shortly after docking.
On the mission’s third day, Hobaugh assisted by his crewmates brought Atlantis in for a docking with the space station. During the rendezvous, Hobaugh stopped the approach at 600 feet and completed the Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver so astronauts aboard the station could photograph Atlantis’ underside to look for any damage to the tiles. Shortly after docking, the crews opened the hatches between the two spacecraft and the six-person station crew welcomed the six-member shuttle crew. After the welcoming ceremony, Stott joined the STS-129 crew, leaving a crew of five aboard the station. Melvin and Bresnik used the SRMS to pick up ELC-1 from the payload bay and hand it off to Wilmore and Expedition 21 NASA astronaut Jeffrey N. Williams operating the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), who then installed it on the P3 truss segment.
Images from the first spacewalk. Left: Michael J. Foreman unstows the S-band Antenna Support Assembly prior to transferring it to the station. Middle: Robert “Bobby” L. Satcher lubricates the robotic arm’s Latching End Effector. Right: Satcher’s image reflected in a Z1 radiator panel.
During the mission’s first of three spacewalks on flight day four, Foreman and Satcher ventured outside for six hours and 37 minutes. During the excursion, with robotic help from their fellow crew members, they transferred a spare S-band Antenna Support Assembly from the shuttle’s payload bay to the station’s Z1 truss. Satcher, an orthopedic surgeon by training, performed “surgery” on the station’s main robotic arm as well as the robotic arm on the Kibo Japanese module, by lubricating their latching end effectors. One day after joining Atlantis’ crew, Stott celebrated her 47th birthday.
Left: Space station crew member Jeffery N. Williams assists STS-129 astronaut Leland D. Melvin in operating the space station’s robotic arm to transfer and install the second EXPRESS Logistics Carrier (ELC2) on the S3 truss. Middle: The station robotic arm installs ELC2 on the S3 truss. Right: Michael J. Foreman, left, and Randolph J. Bresnik during the mission’s second spacewalk.
On the mission’s fifth day, the astronauts performed another focused inspection of the shuttle’s thermal protection system. The next day, through another coordinated robotic activity involving the shuttle and station arms, the astronauts transferred ELC-2 and its complement of spares from the payload bay to the station’s S3 truss. Foreman and Bresnik completed the mission’s second spacewalk. Working on the Columbus module, they installed the Grappling Adaptor to On-Orbit Railing (GATOR) fixture that includes a system used for ship identification and an antenna for Ham radio operators. They next installed a wireless video transmission system on the station’s truss. This spacewalk lasted six hours and eight minutes.
Left: Randolph J. Bresnik during the third STS-129 spacewalk. Middle: Robert “Bobby” L. Satcher during the third spacewalk. Right: The MISSE 7 exposure experiment suitcases installed on ELC2.
Following a crew off duty day, on flight day eight Satcher and Bresnik exited the airlock for the mission’s third and final spacewalk. Their first task involved moving an oxygen tank from the newly installed ELC-2 to the Quest airlock. They accomplished this task with robotic assistance from their fellow crew members. Bresnik retrieved the two-suitcase sized MISSE-7 experiment containers from the shuttle cargo bay and installed them on the MISSE-7 platform on ELC-2, opening them to begin their exposure time. This third spacewalk lasted five hours 42 minutes.
Left: An early Thanksgiving meal for 12 aboard the space station. Right: After the meal, who has the dishes?
Thanksgiving Day fell on the day after undocking, so the joint crews celebrated with a meal a few days early. The meal represented not only the largest Thanksgiving celebration in space with 12 participants, but also the most international, with four nations represented – the United States, Russia, Canada, and Belgium (representing the European Space Agency).
Left: The 12 members of Expedition 21 and STS-129 pose for a final photograph before saying their farewells. Right: The STS-129 crew, now comprising seven members.
A selection of STS-129 Earth observation images. Left: Maui. Middle: Los Angeles. Right: Houston.
Despite their busy workload, as with all space crews, the STS-129 astronauts made time to look out the windows and took hundreds of photographs of their home planet.
Left: The space station seen from Atlantis during the flyaround. Middle: Atlantis as seen from the space station during the flyaround, with a now empty payload bay. Right: Astronaut Nicole P. Stott looks back at the station, her home for three months, from the departing Atlantis.
On flight day nine, the joint crews held a brief farewell ceremony. European Space Agency astronaut Frank De Winne, the first European to command the space station, handed over command to NASA astronaut Williams. The two crews parted company and closed the hatches between the two spacecraft. The next day, with Wilmore at the controls, Atlantis undocked from the space station, having spent seven days as a single spacecraft. Wilmore completed a flyaround of the station, with the astronauts photographing it to document its condition. A final separation burn sent Atlantis on its way.
The astronauts used the shuttle’s arm to pick up the OBSS and perform a late inspection of Atlantis’ thermal protection system. On flight day 11, Hobaugh and Wilmore tested the orbiter’s reaction control system thrusters and flight control surfaces in preparation for the next day’s entry and landing. The entire crew busied themselves with stowing all unneeded equipment.
Left: Atlantis about to touch down at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Middle: Atlantis touches down. Right: Atlantis deploys its drag chute as it continues down the runway.
Left: Six of the STS-129 astronauts pose with Atlantis on the runway at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Right: The welcome home ceremony for the STS-129 crew at Ellington Field in Houston.
On Nov. 27, the astronauts closed Atlantis’ payload bay doors, donned their launch and entry suits, and strapped themselves into their seats, a special recumbent one for Stott who had spent the last three months in weightlessness. Hobaugh fired Atlantis’ two Orbital Maneuvering System engines to bring them out of orbit and head for a landing half an orbit later. He guided Atlantis to a smooth touchdown at KSC’s Shuttle Landing Facility.
The landing capped off a very successful STS-129 mission of 10 days, 19 hours, 16 minutes. The six astronauts orbited the planet 171 times. Stott spent 90 days, 10 hours, 45 minutes in space, completing 1,423 orbits of the Earth. After towing Atlantis to the OPF, engineers began preparing it for its next flight, STS-132 in May 2010. The astronauts returned to Houston for a welcoming ceremony at Ellington Field.
Enjoy the crew narrate a video about the STS-129 mission.
Explore More
23 min read 55 Years Ago: Apollo 12 Makes a Pinpoint Landing on the Moon
Article 4 days ago 12 min read 40 Years Ago: STS-51A – “The Ace Repo Company”
Article 1 week ago 1 min read Oral History with Jon A. McBride, 1943 – 2024
Article 2 weeks ago View the full article
-
By NASA
NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy (front center left) discusses NASA 2040 on Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024, the agency’s strategic initiative for aligning workforce, infrastructure, and technologies to meet the needs of the future with various groups of employees at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
The initiative launched in June 2023 to implement meaningful changes to ensure the agency remains the global leader in aerospace and science in the year 2040 while also making the greatest impacts for the nation and the world.
NASA will focus on addressing the agency’s aging infrastructure, shaping an agency workforce strategy, improving decision velocity at many levels, and exploring ways to achieve greater budget flexibility.
Photo credit: NASA/Glenn Benson
View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.