[Back to Detailed Agenda]
|
| |
|
|
|
|
--- Please forward any additional comments to the relevant Program Manager at NASA Headquarters. ---
|
I am really sorry to have missed this workshop, the list of attendees and presentations was world class. I am following and watching for info on the web. That web link is a great idea. I did have one note for consideration. That is regarding the NSF program on developing a National Ecological Observatory Network (http://www.neoninc.org/). A couple weeks or so ago at the ESA meeting the update on the NEON program from NSF was "pretty promising" and it is expected to get off the ground in 2007 or 2008 with the start of instrumentation and selection of national monitoring sites. Many of the "grande" challenges proposed to be approached by NSF, with the data and infrastructure from that NEON, are related to biodiversity, land use, invasive species, global climate change, etc. I think active, strong involvement from NASA with its research community and remote sensing tools is going to be very important to NEON's success. NEON monitoring sites will certainly contribute data pertinent to the ecological processes NASA wants to understand using remote sensing.
– submitted by Ross Hinkle at 2006-09-01 15:51:58 |
The workshop was perhaps the best workshop I have ever attended. The synthesis provided by the plenary speakers was both fascinating and invaluable.
As the Project Scientist for an "operational" mission, the LDCM, I am compelled to comment on one aspect of the comments provided by NASA management. Dr. Cramer reiterated that NASA should not be in the business of funding "operational" space missions and should instead emphasize new technology and "science" missions. I was struck during the workshop by how much of the terrestrial ecosystem science relies on systematic observations from missions labeled "operational" such as Landsat and MODIS/VIIRS. I also inferred from Dr. Cramer's comments that if NASA were not saddled with the "operational" missions, then the available budget for science R&A would be much larger. I would point out to the community that during Dr. Asrar's last hearing before the House Science Committee, the Committee reminded Dr. Asrar that NASA and NOAA now fall within the same appropriations subcommittee. Dr. Asrar was told not to expect to retain the budget when shifting missions and programs to other agencies. As illustrated by the NPOESS situation, I am concerned that NASA's reluctance to embrace "operational" missions may leave the terrestrial ecology community with a paucity of global, long term, systematic observations.
Thanks for the workshop and the opportunity to throw in my two cents.
Jim Irons
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
– submitted by James (Jim) Irons at 2006-09-01 11:43:00 |
This meeting was terrific and inspired a lot of great ideas. There seemed to be lots of cross pollination between Ecosystems, Biodiversity and Applications, so I'd recommend using the Joint Meeting approach again in the future.
Thanks!
-Scott Ollinger
– submitted by Scott Ollinger at 2006-08-29 19:01:40 |
This was a great meeting!
It is extremely useful to have these programs meet together, even if several sessions need to run in parallel. The cross-pollination is extremely useful, of course. Furthermore, the reduction of "travel burnout" is important -- especially for those of us not in the D.C. area, and who typically have to travel for several programs, and other federal agencies.
I would strongly encourage you to keep the Joint Meeting concept, and explore ways of including LCLUC and the oceans program as well.
Thank you!
- Jon Foley
– submitted by Jon Foley at 2006-08-25 09:39:04 |
How frequently should the Biodiversity, Terrestrial Ecology and Related Applied Sciences investigators meet (e.g., annually, every 18 mos., rarely?)? If future investigator meetings are desired, should these 3 groups meet next separately, together again, or in some other combination(s)?
– submitted by Diane Wickland at 2006-08-23 17:41:12 |
|
|
|
+ QUESTIONS? CONTACT US
|
