Jump to content

Summary of the 2023 GEDI Science Team Meeting


NASA

Recommended Posts

  • Publishers
eo-meeting-summary-banner.png?w=1037

23 min read

Summary of the 2023 GEDI Science Team Meeting

Introduction

The 2023 Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) Science Team Meeting (STM) took place October 17–19, 2023, at the University of Maryland, College Park (UMD), in College Park, MD. Upwards of 80 people participated in the hybrid meeting (around 50 in-person and the rest virtually). Included among them were GEDI Science Team (ST) members, collaborators, and stakeholders – see Photo. The primary goals of the meeting included providing a status update on the GEDI instrument aboard the International Space Station (ISS), receiving final project updates from the inaugural cohort of the GEDI completed ST, and understanding the present status and future goals of data product development.

After a short mission status update, the remainder of this article will summarize the content of the STM. For those desiring more information on these topics, some of the full meeting presentations are posted online. Readers can also contact the GEDI ST with specific questions.

GEDI group photo
Photo. GEDI Science Team Meeting in-person and virtual attendees.
Photo credit: Talia Schwelling

Mission Status Update: GEDI Given New Lease on Life

A lot has changed since the publication of the last GEDI STM summary. (See Summary of the GEDI Science Team Meeting in the July–August 2022 issue of The Earth Observer [Volume 34issue 4, pp. 20–24]). When the GEDI ST convened in November 2022, the fate of GEDI was hanging in the balance, with the plan being to release GEDI from the ISS at the end of its second extension period.

NASA saved the instrument, however, and a new plan went into effect: in order to extend its tenure on the ISS, the GEDI mission entered a temporary period of “hibernation” in March 2023 after nearly four years in orbit. This hibernation period and movement of the instrument from Exposed Facility Unit (EFU)-6 (operating location) to EFU-7 (storage location) made way for another mission – see Figure 1(UPDATE: After being in storage for roughly 13 months, the GEDI instrument was returned to its original location on the Japanese Experiment Module–Exposed Facility (JEM–EF) on Earth Day this year, April 22, 2024, and is now once again back to normal science operations using its three lasers.)

GEDI figure 2
Figure 1. NASA’s GEDI instrument was moved from EFU-6 to EFU-7 on the ISS on March 17, 2023, where it remained in hibernation for 13 months until its recent reinstallation to EFU-6 on April 22, 2024. The instrument is once again back to normal science operations using its three lasers.
Figure credit: NASA

As The Earth Observer reported in 2023, data from GEDI are being used for a wide range of applications, including biomass estimation, habitat characterization, and wildfire prediction (See page 4 of The Editor’s Corner in the March–April 2023 issue of The Earth Observer [Volume 35,Issue 2, pp. 1–4]. This section also reports on GEDI’s extension via out-of-cycle Senior Review in 2022). GEDI data is used to develop maps to quantify biomass that are unique in both their accuracy and their explicit characterization of uncertainty and are a key component in the estimation of aboveground carbon stocks, as absorbed carbon is used to drive plant growth and is stored as biomass – see Figure 2. These estimations help quantify the impacts of deforestation and subsequent regrowth on atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. NASA’s choice to extend the GEDI mission has significantly broadened the capacity to collect more of these important data.

GEDI figure 1
Figure 2. Country-wide estimates of total aboveground biomass in petagrams (Pg) using GEDI Level-4B Version 2.1 dataset (GEDI_L4B_AGB).
Figure credit: ORNL DAAC

DAY ONE

GEDI Mission Operations, Instrument Status, and Data Level Updates

Ralph Dubayah [UMD—GEDI Principal Investigator (PI)] opened the meeting with a summary of the current status of the mission and GEDI data products. After reviewing the details of GEDI’s hibernation (described in the previous section) he went on to describe what GEDI has accomplished over the past 4.5 years of operations, noting that the instrument collected over 26 billion footprints over the land surface.

All the data collected by GEDI during its first epoch (i.e., before its hibernation) have been processed and released to the appropriate Distributed Active Archives Centers (DAACs) as Version 2 (V2) products. (To learn more about the DAACs and other aspects of Earth Science data collection and processing, see Earth Science Data Operations: Acquiring, Distributing, and Delivering NASA Data for the Benefit of Society, in the March–April 2017 issue of The Earth Observer, [Volume 29, Issue 2, pp. 4–18]. The DAACs – including URL links to each – are listed in a Table on page 7–8 of this issue). The two DAACs directly involved with GEDI data processing are the Land Processes DAAC (LP DAAC) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) DAAC. The LP DAAC houses GEDI Level-1 (L1) data, which consists of geolocated waveforms, and L2 data, which is broken down into L2A and L2B. L2A data includes ground elevation, canopy height, and relative height metrics. (Waveform measurements are described in detail in a sidebar on page 32 of the Summary of the Second GEDI Science Team Meeting in the November–December 2016 issue of The Earth Observer [Volume 28, Issue 6, pp. 31–36].) L2B data includes canopy cover fraction (CCF) and leaf area index (LAI). The ORNL DAAC houses GEDI L3 gridded land surface metrics data, L4A footprint level aboveground biomass density data, and L4B gridded aboveground biomass density data – e.g., see Figure 2.

Dubayah went on to explain that while GEDI hibernated, the mission team would work to enhance existing data products as well as produce new products. Version 3 (V3) datasets for all data products are expected to be released by the fall of 2024, and new data products are in development, including a waveform structural complexity index (WSCI) and a topography and canopy height product that blends data from GEDI and the Ice, Clouds, and land Elevation Satellite–2 (ICESat–2) mission. A new dataset, the GEDI L4C footprint level waveform structural complexity index (WSCI) product, was added to the ORNL DAAC catalogue in May 2024. To further improve data quality and coverage, the GEDI team is hoping to organize an airborne lidar field campaign to southeast Asia in the coming years. Dubayah concluded his updates by highlighting a set of six papers published in 2023 in Nature and Science family or partner journals that focused on the use of GEDI data. Visit our website for a comprehensive list of publications related to GEDI.

After receiving a general update from the mission PI, the next several presentations gave meeting participants a more in-depth look at GEDI science data planning and individual data products. Scott Luthcke [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)—GEDI Co-Investigator (Co-I)] presented status updates for the GEDI Science Operating Center (SOC), including the Science Planning System (SPS) and Science Data Processing System (SDPS) automation, development, and processing. In addition, he reported on the status of the L1 geolocated waveform data product and the L3 gridded land surface metrics product. At the time of this meeting, the SPS had completed operations through mission week 223 – almost 4.5 years of data – and was beginning to transition to improving processes on the back end while GEDI hibernates. The SDPS had completed processing and delivery of all V2 data products to the LP DAAC and ORNL DAAC.

Luthcke reported on GEDI’s current observed and estimated geolocation performance, including detailed summaries of component analysis and steps towards improving Precision Orbit Determination (POD), Precision Attitude Determination (PAD), Pointing Calibration, time-tag correction, and Oven Controlled Crystal Oscillator (OCXO) calibration. GEDI passes over Salar de Uyuni, the world’s largest salt flat located in Bolivia – see Figure 3, are being used to assess the PAD high-frequency and low-frequency errors. Estimated errors are shown to be consistent with observed geolocation errors. Finally, Luthcke gave a summary of completed L3 products and new wall-to-wall 1-km (0.62-mi) resolution and high-resolution products.

GEDI figure 3
Figure 3. Salar de Uyuni, the world’s largest salt flat as seen from the International Space Station.
Figure credit: Samantha Cristoforetti/ESA/NASA

John Armston [UMD—GEDI Co-I] updated attendees on GEDI L2 products. L2A consists of elevation and height metrics, and L2B consists of canopy cover and vertical profile metrics. To assess GEDI ground and canopy top measurement accuracy and improve algorithm performance, the mission team is using data collected from NASA Land, Vegetation, and Ice Sensor (LVIS) campaigns from 2016 to present. Armston reported that L2B estimates of canopy and ground reflectance were completed for the first mission epoch (April 2019–March 2023) and the GEDI team continues to work on algorithm improvements for cover estimates in challenging conditions (e.g., steep slopes). Data users can expect improved waveform processing for ground elevation and canopy height, new reflectance estimation, and revised quality metrics and flags in the L2A and L2B not-yet-released V3 products.

Jim Kellner [Brown University—GEDI Co-I] shared the current status of and planned algorithm improvements to the L4A data product, or the footprint-level aboveground biomass density product. The algorithm theoretical basis document for L4A data products was published in November 2022; it describes how models were developed and the importance of quality filtering. L4A data product development continues in tandem with updates to L2A data and improvements to existing calibration and validation data and ingestion of new data.

Sean Healey [U.S. Forest Service—GEDI Co-I] reviewed coverage and uncertainties of the recently produced V2 L4B data products – see Figure 4. Ongoing GEDI-relevant research includes:

  • investigating a statistical method called bootstrapping, which may allow more complex types of models;
  • conducting theoretical statistical studies aimed at decomposing mean square error for model-based methods; and
  • developing ways to estimate biomass change over time – which will become more important as the extended mission potentially stretches to a decade.
GEDI figure 4
Figure 4. Gridded mean aboveground biomass density [top] and standard error of the mean [bottom] from Version 2.1 of the GEDI L4B Gridded Aboveground Biomass Density product, published on October 29, 2023.
Figure credit: ORNL DAAC

Competed Science Team Presentations—Session 1

This GEDI STM was the last convergence of the first iteration of the GEDI competed ST. Attendees received final in-person updates on the cohort’s projects and plans for future research. Over the course of the three-day meeting, there were several sections dedicated to Competed ST Presentations. For purposes of organization in this report, each section has been given a session number. 

Taejin Park [NASA’s Ames Research Center (ARC) and Bay Area Environmental Research Institute (BAERI)] kicked off the ST presentations with an overview of his group’s progress in enhancing the predictions of forest height and aboveground biomass by incorporating GEDI L2, L3, and L4 data products into a process-based model, called Allometric Scaling Resource Limitation (ASRL), over the contiguous United States (CONUS). The ASRL model effectively captures large-scale, maximum tree size distribution and facilitates prognostic applications for predicting future aboveground biomass changes under various climate scenarios. Park also described collaborative research efforts with international partners  to map changes in aboveground biomass in tropical and temperate forests using a carbon management systems (CMS).

Kerri Vierling [University of Idaho] shared the results from her team’s projects demonstrating the use of GEDI data fusion products to describe patterns of bird and mammal distributions in western U.S. forests. The focal species for these projects include a suite of vertebrate forest carnivores, prey, and ecosystem engineer species that modify their environments in ways that create habitat for other creatures, e.g., woodpeckers – see Figure 5. Many of these species are of interest for management by a variety of state and federal agencies. Vierling also discussed ongoing analyses identifying biodiversity hotspots and land ownership patterns.

GEDI figure 5
Figure 5. A Female downy woodpecker creates a tree cavity that other organisms may use in the future for habitat. Woodpecker species are great examples of ecosystem engineers.
Figure credit: Doug Swartz/Macaulay Library at the Cornell Lab or Ornithology (ML 58304661)

Sean Healey presented on his competed ST research on Online Biomass Inference using Waveforms and iNventory (OBI-WAN), a Google Earth Engine application. This forest-carbon reporting tool harnesses GEDI waveforms, biomass models, and statistics to make estimates of mean biomass and biomass change for areas specified by online users. Healey explained the statistical methods applied to operate OBI-WAN and gave context for the use of sensor fusion to provide biomass change information that is critical for monitoring, reporting, and verification.

Keith Krause [Battelle] presented his work evaluating vertical structural similarity of LVIS classic and GEDI large-footprint waveforms. At the GEDI and LVIS footprint scale (20–23 m, or 65–75 ft, spot on the ground), lidar waveforms over forests represent canopies of leaves and branches from several trees. Krause presented results comparing waveforms against each other to show similarities in shape (i.e., if the trees in their footprints have a similar vertical structure). He also described how he used data clustering techniques to group similar waveforms into distinct structural classes. From there, he could map waveforms with similar vertical structure to better understand the spatial distribution of the structural groups.

Breakout Sessions—Session 1

GEDI STMs offer a rare opportunity for members of the competed and mission STs, a variety of stakeholders, and other individuals to convene and discuss ideas and goals for their own research and for the GEDI mission. Toward that end, breakout sessions were held on the first and second day of the meeting – referred to as Session 1 and Session 2 in this report. The individual breakout meetings used a hybrid format allowing in-person and online participants to join the discussion that was most relevant to their interests and expertise.

Chris Hakkenberg [Northern Arizona University (NAU)] led a breakout session on structural diversity, including the horizontal and vertical components. Different structural attributes, (e.g., stand structure, height, cover, and vegetation density) have different – but related – metrics and measurement approaches. Participants discussed biodiversity-structure relationships (BSRs), how to better characterize horizontal structural diversity, and how to define which metrics (i.e., scale, sampling unit, and spatial resolution) are most meaningful in different situations.

Jim Kellner led a session that focused on biomass calibration and validation and how to create the best data products given global environmental variation. Special cases – e.g., mangroves – pose challenges for calibration and validation because they don’t always have as much plot-level data as other environments. Participants discussed how to determine strata while considering climactic and environmental covariates as well as constraints of data availability and consistency.

Competed Science Team Presentations—Session 2

The FORest Carbon Estimation (FORCE) Project is exploring the use of GEDI-derived canopy structure metrics to map forest biomass in the U.S. and Canada. Daniel Hayes [University of Maine] presented comparisons of GEDI metrics and canopy height models derived from airborne lidar and photo point clouds over different forest types and disturbance history in managed forests of Maine. Co-PI Andy Finley [Michigan State University] presented new work that adjusts GEDI L4B biomass estimates to plot data over the continental U.S. from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Research and Development Branch. The project’s next steps are to fuse GEDI canopy structure metrics with other covariates in a spatial model to produce wall-to-wall estimates of biomass for boreal–temperate transition forests in northeast North America.

GEDI data is also being used to study tropical forests. Chris Doughty [NAU] described how he and his team analyzed GEDI L2A data across all tropical forests and found that tropical forest structure was less stratified and more exposed to sunlight than previously thought. Most tropical forests (80% of the Amazon and 70% of southeast Asia and the Congo Basin) have a peak in the number of leaves at 15 m (49 ft) instead of at the canopy top. Doughty and his team have found that deviation from more ideal conditions (i.e., lower fertility or higher temperatures) lead to shorter, less-stratified tropical forests with lower biomass.

Paul Moorcroft [Harvard University] reported on studies of current and future carbon dynamics across the Pacific Coast region based on forest structure and rates of carbon uptake. Moorcroft’s group examined how these ecosystems will behave in the future under different climate scenarios and have plans to conduct similar studies in other regions.

DAY TWO

Naikoa Aguilar-Amuchastegui [World Bank] kicked off day two with his perspective on the importance of streamlining the monitoring, reporting, and validation (MRV) process from scientific estimation to actual use of the data. Once scientific data is generated, end users are often faced with challenges related to transparency and understandability. Scientists can better communicate how to use their datasets properly, by familiarizing themselves with who wants to use their data, why they want to use it, and what their needs are. With this information in mind, data can be presented in more practical ways that allow for a variety of institutions with different standards and frameworks to integrate GEDI data more easily into their reporting. As the GEDI team continues to produce high-quality maps, efforts are underway to connect with end users and provide tutorials, workshops, and other resources.

GEDI Demonstrative Products

Demonstrative products show how GEDI data can be used in practice and in combination with other resources. Ecosystem modeling is one way that GEDI data are being used to address questions about aboveground carbon balance, future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and habitat quality and biodiversity. George Hurtt [UMD—GEDI Co-I] shared his progress on integrating GEDI canopy height measurements with the Ecosystem Demography model to estimate current global forest carbon stocks and project future sequestration gaps under climate change – see Figure 6. Hurtt emphasized that this unprecedented volume of lidar data significantly enhances the ability of carbon models to capture spatial heterogeneity of forest carbon dynamics at 1 km (0.6 mi) scale, which is crucial for local policymaking regarding climate mitigation.

GEDI figure 6
Figure 6. [Top] Average lidar canopy height at 0.01° resolution, computed by gridding both GEDI and ICESat-2 together, and carbon stocks [middle] and fluxes [bottom] from ED-Lidar (GEDI and ICESat-2 combined). The insets highlight fine-scale spatial distribution and coverage gaps at selected regions (1.5° × 1.5°). Note that the three maps show grid-cell averages aggregated from sub-grid scale heterogeneity for each variable.
Figure credit: From a 2023 article in Global Change Biology.

There is also great potential for the development and application of methods for mapping forest structure, carbon stocks, and their changes by fusing data from GEDI and the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt’s (DLR) [German Space Operations Center] TerraSAR-X Add-oN for Digital Elevation Measurement (TanDEM-X) satellite mission, which uses synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to gather three-dimensional (3D) images of Earth’s surface. This fusion product is being spearheaded by Wenlu Qi [UMD], who presented on efforts to create maps of pantropical canopy height, biomass, forest structure, and biomass change using the fusion product as well as maps of forests in temperate U.S. and Hawaii.

Data from the GEDI mission are also being used to quantify the spatial and temporal distribution of habitat structure, which influences habitat quality and biodiversity. Scott Goetz [NAU—GEDI Deputy PI] presented on biodiversity-related activities, citing a 2023 paper in Nature that examined the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) across southeast Asia using GEDI data to compare canopy structure within and outside of PAs – see Figure 7. He also presented an analysis of tree and plant diversity across U.S. National Ecological Observation Network (NEON) sites that showed similar capabilities of GEDI with airborne laser scanning (ALS) for tree diversity.

GEDI figure 7
Figure 7. [Top] Protected Areas (PAs) such as national parks can reduce habitat loss and degradation (from logging) and extractive behaviors such as hunting (shown in red circle), but this figure shows there are a wide range of real-world outcomes based on management effectiveness. [Middle] PAs are aimed at safeguarding multiple facets of biodiversity, including species richness (SR), functional richness (FR) and phylogenetic diversity (PD). PAs often focus on vertebrate conservation, owing to their threat levels and value to humans – including for tourism. This study focused on wildlife in southeast Asia, with mammals shown here representing a variation of feeding guilds and sizes. The same approach is repeated for birds. [Bottom] Wildlife communities inside PAs and in the surrounding landscape may exhibit distinct levels and types of diversity.
Figure credit: From a 2023 article in Nature.

Competed Science Team Presentations—Session 3

One unique application of GEDI data is using lidar height to improve radiative transfer models for snow processes. Steven Hancock [University of Edinburgh, Scotland] reported on his group’s work studying snow, forest structure, and heterogeneity in forests, explaining that the majority of land surface models used for climate and weather forecasting use one-dimensional (1D) radiative transfer (RT) models driven by leaf area alone. Heterogeneous forests cast shadows and cause the surface albedo to depend upon sun angle and tree height for moderate leaf area indices (LAI), i.e., LAI values from  1-3 – which are common in snow-affected areas. This complexity cannot be represented in 1D models. An RT model can represent the effect of tree height and horizontal heterogeneity to simulate the observed change in albedo with height, which itself spatially varies.

In contrast to a snowy study area, Ovidiu Csillik [NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory] and his team are developing statistical models to link GEDI relative height metrics to tropical forest characteristics traceable to inventory measurements. This dataset of forest structure variables over the Amazon will be used to initialize a demographic ecosystem model to produce projections of future potential tropical forest carbon, as demonstrated by Amazon-wide simulations using initializations from airborne lidar sampling.

Wenge Ni-Meister [Hunter College of the City University of New York] is working on improving aboveground biomass estimates using GEDI waveform measurements. Ni-Meister and her team are testing models in both domestic and international tropical and temperate forests.

Breakout Sessions—Session 2

Two more breakout sessions occurred on day two:  

Sean Healey led a discussion on modes of inference for GEDI data. Inference – formally derived uncertainty for area estimates of biomass, height, or other metrics – can take different forms, each of which includes specific assumptions. In this breakout session, participants considered the strengths and limitations of different inference types (e.g., intensity of computation or the ability to use different models).

Laura Duncanson [UMD—GEDI Co-I] led a discussion about facilitation of open science, in other words, how to make GEDI data more accessible and digestible for data users. While GEDI data area free and publicly available via the LP DAAC and ORNL DAAC, gaining access to said data can be intimidating. Sharing more about existing resources and creating new ones can help remove barriers. The LP DAAC and ORNL DAAC have excellent tutorials on GitHub (a cloud-based software development platform that is primarily Python-based), and Google Earth Engine applications are available for accessing and visualizing GEDI data. Future endeavors may include more webinars, R-based tutorials, workshops, and trainings on specific topics and ways to use GEDI data. More information is available via an online compilation of GEDI-related tutorials.

Perspective: A NUVIEW of Earth’s Land Surface

For the second perspective presentation of day two, meeting attendees heard from Clint Graumann, CEO and co-founder of NUVIEW, a company whose mission is to build a commercial satellite constellation of lidar-imaging satellites that will produce 3D maps of the Earth’s entire land surface. Graumann shared NUVIEW’s intent to produce land surface maps on an annual basis and provide a variety of products and services, including digital surface models (DSMs), digital terrain models (DTMs), and a point cloud generated by laser pulses.

Competed Science Team Presentations—Session 4

Laura Duncanson began the second round of science presentations with her group’s research on global forest carbon hotspots. She discussed her 2023 paper in Nature Communications on the effectiveness of global PAs for climate change mitigation – see Figure 8, which found that the creation of PAs led to more biomass – especially in the Amazon. Within GEDI-domain terrestrial PAs, total aboveground biomass (AGB) storage was found to be 125 Pg, which is around 26% of global estimated AGB. Without the existence of PAs, 19.7 Gt of the 125 Pg would have likely been lost.

GEDI figure 8
Figure 8. PAs effectively preserve additional aboveground carbon (AGC) across continents and biomes, with forest biomes dominating the global signal, particularly in South America. The additional preserved AGC (Gt) in WWF biome classes (total Gt + /− SEM*area). World base map made with Natural Earth. The full set of analyzed GEDI data are represented in this figure (n = 412,100,767).
Figure credit: From a 2023 article in Nature Communications.

Another unique application of GEDI data has to do with water on the Earth’s surface. Kyungtae Lee [UMD], who works with Michelle Hofton [UMD—GEDI Co-I], reported that GEDI appears to capture the monthly annual cycle of lake elevation, showing good correlation with the ground-based observations. Lee explained that even though the GEDI lake elevation estimates show systematic biases relative to the local gauges, GEDI captures lake elevation dynamics well – especially the annual cycle variations. This work has the potential to expand knowledge of hydrological significance of lakes, particularly in data-limited areas of the world. Stephen Good [Oregon State University] presented a survey of his team’s recent work integrating observations from GEDI into hydrology and hydraulics studies of how vegetation can block and intercept moving water. The team found important nonlinear relationships between inferred canopy storage and canopy biomass and were able to estimate canopy water storage capacities and map these globally.

Finally, Patrick Burns [NAU], who works with Scott Goetz, presented results using GEDI canopy structure metrics in mammal species distribution models across southeast Asia (specifically focusing on Borneo and Sumatra). The team’s early results indicate that GEDI canopy structure metrics are important in many mammal distribution models and improve model performance for another smaller subset of species. In other words, when looking at predictors like mean annual precipitation or forest structure (forest structure being a metric that GEDI data provide), the GEDI-derived structure metrics are more intuitive and help us understand distributional changes and fine-scale habitat suitability. In a region like southeast Asia, for example, which has undergone high rates of deforestation in the recent decades, forest structure may be a more relevant predictor in a species distribution model (SDM) than other metrics like climate or vegetation composition. The team will continue to produce models for additional species and expand the extent of the analysis to include mainland Asia.

DAY THREE

Competed Science Team Presentations—Session 5

Day three began with the meeting’s last round of competed ST presentations. John Armston presented the progress of GEDI L2B Plant Area Volume Density (PAVD) product validation using a global Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) database and fusion of the L2B product with Landsat time-series for quantifying change in canopy structure from the Australian wildfires of 2019–2020. Participants then heard from Jim Kellner on using machine-learning algorithms for L4A aboveground biomass density (AGBD). The performance of machine-learning algorithms on a testing data set was comparable to linear regressions used for the first releases of GEDI AGBD data products on average – although there were important geographical differences associated with machine learning. One application under investigation is using machine learning to identify new potential stratifications for GEDI footprint aboveground biomass density.

Lastly, Jingyu Dai [New Mexico State University (NMSU)], who works with Niall Hanan [NMSU], presented on her analysis of the global limits to tree height. Her study shows that hydraulic limitation is the most important constraint on maximum canopy height globally. This result is mediated by plant functional type. In addition, rougher terrain promotes forest height at sub-landscape scales by enriching local niche diversity and probability of larger trees.

Perspective from the Data Side

As described in the summary of Ralph Dubayah’s introductory remarks, the LP DAAC and ORNL DAAC play essential roles in the dissemination of GEDI data and the success of the GEDI program. Representatives from each of these DAACs addressed the ST to summarize recent GEDI-related activities.

Aaron Friesz [United States Geological Survey (USGS)] represented the LP DAAC and gave an update on the current archive size, distribution metrics, and outreach activities. He also discussed plans to support the growth and sustainability of the community through collaboration activities that will leverage the GitHub application; he described some of the resources that are available. Friesz then highlighted the USGS Eyes on Earth podcast and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society (GRSS)’s Down to Earth podcast, which have featured Ralph Dubayah and Laura Duncanson, and shared plans to update the current GitHub tutorials and how-to guides in the Earthdata Cloud of GEDI V2 and V3.

Rupesh Shrestha [ORNL] represented the ORNL DAAC and shared the status of GEDI L3, L4A, and L4B datasets archived there. He gave an overview of data tools and services for the GEDI datasets, which can be found on the GEDI website and GitHub tutorials website. GEDI L3, L4A, and L4B are available on NASA’s Earthdata Cloud and various enterprise-level services, such as NASA’s WorldView, Harmony, and OpenDAP. GEDI data usage metrics, data tutorials and workshops, and outreach activities, as well as other published community and related datasets were also highlighted. GEDI L3, L4A, and L4B have been downloaded over four million times collectively.

Neha Hunka [UMD] gave the final presentation of the meeting on biomass harmonization activities. She reported that the GEDI estimates of aboveground biomass are capable of directly contributing to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Global Stocktake. Hunka and her colleagues’ research is aimed at bridging the science–policy gap to enable the use of space-based aboveground biomass estimates for policy reporting and impact – see Figure 9.

GEDI figure 9
Figure 9. Forest biomass estimates in the format of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 1 values from NASA GEDI and ESA Climate Change Initiative (CCI) maps.
Figure credit: Neha Hunka

Conclusion

Overall, the 2023 GEDI STM showcased an exceptional array of scientific research that is highly relevant to addressing pressing global challenges and answering key questions about global forest structure, carbon balance, habitat quality, and biodiversity among other topics. As the GEDI instrument enters its second epoch, we are excited to welcome a new competed GEDI science team cohort and look forward to the release of V3 data products later this year.

Ralph Dubayah concluded the STM with a summary of hibernation period goals and a farewell to this iteration of the competed ST. He extended a heartfelt thank you and farewell to Hank Margolis [NASA Headquarters, emeritus] who has been the NASA Program Scientist for the GEDI mission since 2015. Thank you, Hank. We will miss you.

Talia Schwelling
University of Maryland, College Park
tschwell@umd.edu

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By NASA
      10 min read
      Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
      Return to 2024 SARP Closeout Faculty Advisors:
      Dr. Guanyu Huang, Stony Brook University
      Graduate Mentor:
      Ryan Schmedding, McGill University

      Ryan Schmedding, Graduate Mentor
      Ryan Schmedding, graduate mentor for the 2024 SARP Atmospheric Science group, provides an introduction for each of the group members and shares behind-the scenes moments from the internship.
      Danielle Jones
      Remote sensing of poor air quality in mountains: A case study in Kathmandu, Nepal
      Danielle Jones
      Urban activity produces particulate matter in the atmosphere known as aerosol particles. These aerosols can negatively affect human health and cause changes to the climate system. Measures for aerosols include surface level PM2.5 concentration and aerosol optical depth (AOD). Kathmandu, Nepal is an urban area that rests in a valley on the edge of the Himalayas and is home to over three million people. Despite the prevailing easterly winds, local aerosols are mostly concentrated in the valley from the residential burning of coal followed by industry. Exposure to PM2.5 has caused an estimated ≥8.6% of deaths annually in Nepal. We paired NASA satellite AOD and elevation data, model  meteorological data, and local AirNow PM2.5 and air quality index (AQI) data to determine causes of variation in pollutant measurement during 2023, with increased emphasis on the post-monsoon season (Oct. 1 – Dec. 31). We see the seasonality of meteorological data related to PM2.5 and AQI. During periods of low temperature, low wind speed, and high pressure, PM2.5 and AQI data slightly diverge. This may indicate that temperature inversions increase surface level concentrations of aerosols but have little effect on the total air column. The individual measurements of surface pressure, surface temperature, and wind speed had no observable correlation to AOD (which was less variable than PM2.5 and AQI over the entire year). Elevation was found to have no observable effect on AOD during the period of study. Future research should focus on the relative contributions of different pollutants to the AQI to test if little atmospheric mixing causes the formation of low-altitude secondary pollutants in addition to PM2.5 leading to the observed divergence in AQI and PM2.5.

      Madison Holland
      Analyzing the Transport and Impact of June 2023 Canadian Wildfire Smoke on Surface PM2.5 Levels in Allentown, Pennsylvania
      Madison Holland
      The 2023 wildfire season in Canada was unparalleled in its severity. Over 17 million hectares burned, the largest area ever burned in a single season. The smoke from these wildfires spread thousands of kilometers, causing a large population to be exposed to air pollution. Wildfires can release a variety of air pollutants, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5). PM2.5 directly affects human health – exposure to wildfire-related PM2.5 has been associated with respiratory issues such as the exacerbation of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In June 2023, smoke from the Canadian wildfires drifted southward into the United States. The northeastern United States reported unhealthy levels of air quality due to the transportation of the smoke. In particular, Pennsylvania reported that Canadian wildfires caused portions of the state to have “Hazardous” air quality. Our research focused on how Allentown, PA experienced hazardous levels of air quality from this event. To analyze the concentrations of PM2.5 at the surface level, NASA’s Hazardous Air Quality Ensemble System (HAQES) and the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) ground-based site data were utilized. By comparing HAQES’s forecast of hazardous air quality events with recorded daily average PM2.5 with the EPA’s AQS, we were able to compare how well the ensemble system was at predicting total PM2.5 during unhealthy air quality days. NOAA’s Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model, pyrsig, and the Canadian National Fire Database were used. These datasets revealed the trajectory of aerosols from the wildfires to Allentown, Pennsylvania, identified the densest regions of the smoke plumes, and provided a map of wildfire locations in southeastern Canada. By integrating these datasets, we traced how wildfire smoke transported aerosols from the source at the ground level.

      Michele Iraci
      Trends and Transport of Tropospheric Ozone From New York City to Connecticut in the Summer of 2023
      Michele Iraci
      Tropospheric Ozone, or O₃, is a criteria pollutant contributing to most of Connecticut and New York City’s poor air quality days. It has adverse effects on human health, particularly for high-risk individuals. Ozone is produced by nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from fuel combustion reacting with sunlight. The Ozone Transport Region (OTR) is a collection of states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States that experience cross-state pollution of O₃. Connecticut has multiple days a year where O₃ values exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards requiring the implementation of additional monitoring and standards because it falls in the OTR. Partially due to upstream transport from New York City, Connecticut experiences increases in O₃ concentrations in the summer months. Connecticut has seen declines in poor air quality days from O₃ every year due to the regulations on ozone and its precursors. We use ground-based Lidar, Air Quality System data, and a back-trajectory model to examine a case of ozone enhancement in Connecticut caused by air pollutants from New York between June and August 2023. In this time period, Connecticut’s ozone enhancement was caused by air pollutants from New York City. As a result, New York City and Connecticut saw similar O₃ spikes and decline trends. High-temperature days increase O₃ in both places, and wind out of the southwest may transport O₃ to Connecticut. Production and transport of O₃ from New York City help contribute to Connecticut’s poor air quality days, resulting in the need for interstate agreements on pollution management.

      Stefan Sundin
      Correlations Between the Planetary Boundary Layer Height and the Lifting Condensation Level
      Stefan Sundin
      The Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) characterizes the lowest layer in the atmosphere that is coupled with diurnal heating at the surface. The PBL grows during the day as solar heating causes pockets of air near the surface to rise and mix with cooler air above. Depending on the type of terrain and surface albedo that receives solar heating, the depth of the PBL can vary to a great extent. This makes PBL height (PBLH) a difficult variable to quantify spatially and temporally. While several methods have been used to obtain the PBLH such as wind profilers and lidar techniques, there is still a level of uncertainty associated with PBLH. One method of predicting seasonal PBLH fluctuation and potentially lessening uncertainty that will be discussed in this study is recognizing a correlation in PBLH with the lifting condensation level (LCL). Like the PBL, the LCL is used as a convective parameter when analyzing upper air data, and classifies the height in the atmosphere at which a parcel becomes saturated when lifted by a forcing mechanism, such as a frontal boundary, localized convergence, or orographic lifting. A reason to believe that PBLH and LCL are interconnected is their dependency on both the amount of surface heating and moisture that is present in the environment. These thermodynamic properties are of interest in heavily populated metropolitan areas within the Great Plains, as they are more susceptible to severe weather outbreaks and associated economic losses. Correlations between PBLH and LCL over the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan statistical area during the summer months of 2019-2023 will be discussed.

      Angelica Kusen
      Coupling of Chlorophyll-a Concentrations and Aerosol Optical Depth in the Subantarctic Southern Ocean and South China Sea (2019-2021)
      Angelica Kusen
      Air-sea interactions form a complex feedback mechanism, whereby aerosols impact physical and biogeochemical processes in marine environments, which, in turn, alter aerosol properties. One key indicator of these interactions is chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), a pigment common to all phytoplankton and a widely used proxy for primary productivity in marine ecosystems. Phytoplankton require soluble nutrients and trace metals for growth, which typically come from oceanic processes such as upwelling. These nutrients can also be supplied via wet and dry deposition, where atmospheric aerosols are removed from the atmosphere and deposited into the ocean. To explore this interaction, we analyze the spatial and temporal variations of satellite-derived chl-a and AOD, their correlations, and their relationship with wind patterns in the Subantarctic Southern Ocean and the South China Sea from 2019 to 2021, two regions with contrasting environmental conditions.
      In the Subantarctic Southern Ocean, a positive correlation (r²= 0.26) between AOD and Chl-a was found, likely due to dust storms following Austrian wildfires. Winds deposit dust aerosols rich in nutrients, such as iron, to the iron-limited ocean, enhancing phytoplankton photosynthesis and increasing chl-a. In contrast, the South China Sea showed no notable correlation (r² = -0.02) between AOD and chl-a. Decreased emissions due to COVID-19 and stricter pollution controls likely reduced the total AOD load and shifted the composition of aerosols from anthropogenic to more natural sources.
      These findings highlight the complex interrelationship between oceanic biological activity and the chemical composition of the atmosphere, emphasizing that atmospheric delivery of essential nutrients, such as iron and phosphorus, promotes phytoplankton growth. Finally, NASA’s recently launched PACE mission will contribute observations of phytoplankton community composition at unprecedented scale, possibly enabling attribution of AOD levels to particular groups of phytoplankton.

      Chris Hautman
      Estimating CO₂ Emission from Rocket Plumes Using in Situ Data from Low Earth Atmosphere
      Chris Hautman
      Rocket emissions in the lower atmosphere are becoming an increasing environmental concern as space exploration and commercial satellite launches have increased exponentially in recent years. Rocket plumes are one of the few known sources of anthropogenic emissions directly into the upper atmosphere. Emissions in the lower atmosphere may also be of interest due to their impacts on human health and the environment, in particular, ground level pollutants transported over wildlife protected zones, such as the Everglades, or population centers near launch sites. While rockets are a known source of atmospheric pollution, the study of rocket exhaust is an ongoing task. Rocket exhaust can have a variety of compositions depending on the type of engine, the propellants used, including fuels, oxidizers, and monopropellants, the stoichiometry of the combustion itself also plays a role. In addition, there has been increasing research into compounds being vaporized in atmospheric reentry. These emissions, while relatively minimal compared to other methods of travel, pose an increasing threat to atmospheric stability and environmental health with the increase in human space activity. This study attempts to create a method for estimating the total amount of carbon dioxide released by the first stage of a rocket launch relative to the mass flow of RP-1, a highly refined kerosene (C₁₂H₂₆)), and liquid oxygen (LOX) propellants. Particularly, this study will focus on relating in situ CO₂ emission data from a Delta II rocket launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on April 15, 1999, to CO₂ emissions from popular modern rockets, such as the Falcon 9 (SpaceX) and Soyuz variants (Russia). The findings indicate that the CO₂ density of any RP-1/LOX rocket is 6.9E-7 times the mass flow of the sum of all engines on the first stage. The total mass of CO₂ emitted can be further estimated by modeling the volume of the plume as cylindrical. Therefore, the total mass can be calculated as a function of mass flow and first stage main engine cutoff. Future CO₂ emissions on an annual basis are calculated based on these estimations and anticipated increases in launch frequency.


      Return to 2024 SARP Closeout Share
      Details
      Last Updated Nov 22, 2024 Related Terms
      General Explore More
      8 min read SARP East 2024 Ocean Remote Sensing Group
      Article 21 mins ago 10 min read SARP East 2024 Hydroecology Group
      Article 21 mins ago 11 min read SARP East 2024 Terrestrial Fluxes Group
      Article 22 mins ago View the full article
    • By NASA
      Associate Director for Mission Planning, Earth Sciences, and environmental scientist Robert J. “Bob” Swap makes a difference by putting knowledge into action.
      Name: Robert J. “Bob” Swap
      Title: Associate Director for Mission Planning, Earth Sciences
      Organization: Earth Science Division (Code 610)
      Robert Swap (right) and Karen St. Germain, NASA Earth science director (left) joined NASA’s Student Airborne Research Program, an eight-week summer internship program for rising senior undergraduates during summer 2023. Photo courtesy of Robert Swap What do you do and what is most interesting about your role here at Goddard?
      I work with our personnel to come up with the most viable mission concepts and put together the best teams to work on these concepts. I love working across the division, and with the center and the broader community, to engage with diverse competent teams and realize their potential in address pressing challenges in the earth sciences.
      Why did you become an Earth scientist?
      In the mid to late ’70s, the environment became a growing concern. I read all the Golden Guides in the elementary school library to learn about different creatures. I grew up exploring and discovering the surrounding woods, fields, and creeks, both on my own and through scouting and became drawn to nature, its connectedness, and its complexity. The time I spent fishing with my father, a military officer who also worked with meteorology, and my brother helped cement that love. I guess you could say that I became “hooked.”
      What is your educational background?
      In 1987, I got a B.A. in environmental science from the University of Virginia. While at UVA, I was a walk-on football player, an offensive lineman on UVA’s first ever post-season bowl team. This furthered my understanding of teamwork, how to work with people who were much more skilled than I was, and how to coach. I received master’s and Ph.D. degrees in environmental science from UVA in 1990 and 1996, respectively.
      As an undergraduate in environmental sciences, I learned about global biochemical cycling — meaning how carbon and nitrogen move through the living and nonliving systems — while working on research teams in the Chesapeake Bay, the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Amazon Basin.
      Before graduating I had the good fortune to participate in the NASA Amazon Boundary Layer Experiment (ABLE-2B) in the central Amazon, which I used to kick off my graduate studies. I then focused on southern African aerosol emissions, transports and depositions for my doctoral studies that ultimately led to a university research fellow postdoc at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.
      What are some of your career highlights?
      It has been a crazy journey!
      While helping put up meteorological towers in the Amazon deep jungle, we would encounter massive squall lines. These storms were so loud as they rained down on the deep forest that you could not hear someone 10 feet away. One of the neatest things that I observed was that after the storms passed, we would see a fine red dust settling on top of our fleet of white Volkswagen rental vehicles in the middle of the rainforest.
      That observation piqued my interest and led to a paper I wrote about Saharan dust being transported to the Amazon basin and its potential implications for the Amazon, especially regarding nutrient losses from the system. Our initial work suggested there was not enough input from Northern Africa to support the system’s nutrient losses. That caused us to start looking to Sub-Saharan Africa as a potential source of these nutritive species.
      I finished my master’s during the first Persian Gulf War, and finding a job was challenging. During that phase I diversified my income stream by delivering newspapers and pizzas and also bouncing at a local nightspot so that I could focus on writing papers and proposals related to my research. One of my successes was the winning of a joint National Science Foundation proposal that funded my doctoral research to go to Namibia and examine sources of aerosol and trace gases as part of the larger NASA TRACE-Southern African Atmosphere Fire Research Initiative – 92 (SAFARI-92). We were based at Okaukuejo Rest Camp inside of Namibia’s Etosha National Park for the better part of two months. We characterized conservative chemical tracers of aerosols, their sources and long-range transport from biomass burning regions, which proved, in part, that Central Southern Africa was providing mineral and biomass burning emissions containing biogeochemically important species to far removed, downwind ecosystems thousands of kilometers away.  
      When I returned to Africa as a postdoctoral fellow, I  was able to experience other countries and cultures including Lesotho, Mozambique, and Zambia. In 1997, NASA’s AERONET project was also expanding into Africa and I helped Brent Holben and his team deploy instruments throughout Africa in preparation for vicarious validation of instrumentation aboard NASA’s Terra satellite platform.
      I returned to UVA as a research scientist to work for Chris Justice and his EOS MODIS/Terra validation team. I used this field experience and the international networks I developed, which contributed to my assuming the role of U.S. principal investigator for NASA’s Southern African Regional Science Initiative. Known as SAFARI 2000, it was an effort that involved 250 scientists from 16 different countries and lasted more than three years. When it ended, I became a research professor and began teaching environmental science and mentoring UVA students on international engagement projects.
      Around 2000, I created a regional knowledge network called Eastern/Southern Africa Virginia Network and Association (ESAVANA) that leveraged the formal and informal structures and networks that SAFARI 2000 established. I used my team building and science diplomacy skills to pull together different regional university partners, who each had unique pieces for unlocking the larger puzzle of how southern Africa acted as a regional coupled human-natural system. Each partner had something important to contribute while the larger potential was only possible by leveraging their respective strengths together as a team.
      I traveled extensively during this time and was supported in 2001 partially by a Fulbright Senior Specialist Award which allowed me to spend time at the University of Eduardo Mondlane in Maputo Mozambique to help them with hydrology ecosystem issues in the wake of massive floods. We kept the network alive by creating summer study abroad, service learning and intersession January educational programs that drew upon colleagues and their expertise from around the world that attracted new people, energy, and resources to ESAVANA. All of these efforts contributed to a “community of practice” focused on learning about the ethics and protocols of international research. The respectful exchange of committed people and their energies and ideas was key to the effort’s success. I further amplified the impact of this work by contributing my lived and learned experiences to the development of the first ever global development studies major at UVA.
      In 2004, I had a bad car accident and as a result have battled back and hip issues ever since. After falling off the research funding treadmill, I had to reconfigure myself in the teaching and program consultant sector. I grew more into a teaching role and was recognized for it by UVA’s Z-Society 2008 Professor of the Year, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s Virginia’s 2012 Professor of the Year, as well as my 2014 induction into UVA’s Academy of Teaching — all while technically a research professor. I was also heavily involved for almost a decade with the American Association for the Advancement of Science and its Center for Science Diplomacy and tasks related to activities such as reviewing the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research and teaching science diplomacy in short courses for the World Academy of Sciences for the Advancement of Science in Developing Countries located in Trieste, Italy, and the Academy of Science of South Africa.
      I worked in the Earth Sciences Division at NASA Headquarters from 2014 to early 2017 as a rotating program support officer as part of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), where I supported the atmospheric composition focus area. One of my responsibilities involved serving as a United States Embassy science fellow in the summer of 2015, where I went to Namibia to support one of our Earth Venture Suborbital field campaigns. I came to Goddard in April 2017 to help revector their nascent global network of ground-based, hyperspectral ultraviolet and visible instruments known as the Pandora.
      What is your next big project?
      I am currently working with the NASA Goddard Earth Science Division front office to craft a vision for the next 20 years, which involves the alignment of people around a process to achieve a desired product. With the field of Earth System Science changing so rapidly, we need to position ourselves within this ever evolving “new space” environment of multi-sectoral partners — governmental, commercial, not-for-profit, and academic — from the U.S. and beyond to study the Earth system. This involves working with other governmental agencies, universities and industrial partners to chart a way forward. We will have a lot of new players. We will be working with partners we never imagined.
      We need people who know how to work across these different sectors. One such attempt to “grow our own timber” involves my development of an experimental version of the first NASA Student Airborne Research Program East Coast Edition (SARP and SARP-East), where student participants from a diversity of institutions of higher learning can see the power and promise of what NASA does, how we work together on big projects, and hopefully be inspired to take on the challenges of the future. In other words, I am pushing an exposure to field-based, Earth system science down earlier into their careers to expose them to what NASA does in an integrated fashion.
      What assets do you bring to the Earth Science Division front office?
      In 2020, I came to the Earth science front office to help lead the division. I make myself available across the division to help inspire, collect, suggest, and coach our rank and file into producing really cool mission concept ideas.
      Part of why the front office wanted me is because I use the skills of relationship building, community building, and science diplomacy to make things happen, to create joint ventures.  Having had to support myself for over 20 years on soft money, I learned to become an entrepreneur of sorts — to be scientifically and socially creative — and I was forced to look inward and take an asset-based approach. I look at all the forms of capital I have at hand and use those to make the best of what I have got. In Appalachia, there is an expression: use everything but the squeal from the pig.
      Lastly, I bring a quick wit with a good dose of self-deprecating humor that helps me connect with people.
      How do you use science diplomacy to make things happen?
      Two of the things that bind people together about science are the process of inquiry and utilizing the scientific method, both of which are universally accepted. As such, they allow us to transcend national and cultural divides.
      Science diplomacy works best when you start with this common foundation. Starting with this premise in collaborative science allows for conversations to take place focusing on what everyone has in common. You can have difficult conversations and respectful confrontations about larger issues.
      Scientists can then talk and build bridges in unique ways. We did this with SAFARI 2000 while working in a region that had seen two major wars and the system of Apartheid within the previous decade. We worked across borders of people who were previously at odds. We did that by looking at something apart from national identity, which was Southern Africa. We focused on how a large-scale system functions and how to make something that incorporates 10 different countries operate as a unit. We wanted to conduct studies showing how the region operated as a functional unit while dealing with transboundary issues. It took a lot of community and trust, and we began with the science community.
      What drives you?
      I want to put knowledge into action to make a difference. I realize it is not about me, it is about “we.” That is why I came to NASA, to make a difference. There is no other agency in the world where we can harness such a unique and capable group of people.
      What do you do for fun?
      I enjoy watching sports. I still enjoy hiking, fishing, and tubing down the river. My wife and I like long walks through natural settings with our rescues, Lady, our black-and-tan coonhound, and Duchess, our long-haired German Shepherd Dog. They are our living hot water bottles in the winter.
      My wife and I also like to cook together.
      Who would you like to thank?
      Without a doubt, it starts with my wife, family, and children whom without none of what I have accomplished would have been possible. I have had the good fortune to be able to bring them along on some of my international work, including to Africa.
      I am also very grateful to all those people during my school years who stepped in and who did not judge me initially by my less than stellar grades. They gave me the chance to become who I am today.
      Who inspires you?
      There is an old television show that I really liked called “Connections,” by James Burke. He would start with a topic, go through the history, and show how one action led to another action with unforeseen consequences. He would take something modern like plastics and link it back to Viking times. Extending that affinity for connections, the Resilience Alliance out of Sweden also influences me with their commitment to showing connections and cycles.
      My mentors at UVA were always open to serving as a sounding board. They treated me as a colleague, not a student, as a member of the guild even though I was still an apprentice. That left an indelible impression upon me and I always try to do the same. My doctoral mentor Mike Garstang said that he already had a job and that this job was to let me stand on his shoulders to allow me to get to the next level, which is my model.
      Another person who was very formative during my early professional career was Jerry Melillo who showed me what it was like to be an effective programmatic mentor. I worked with him as his chief staffer of an external review of the IAI and learned a lot by watching how he ran that activity program.
      With respect to NASA, a number of people come to mind: Michael King, Chris Justice, and Tim Suttles, as well as my South African Co-PI, Harold Annegarn, all of whom, at one time or another, took me under their respective wings and mentored me through the whole SAFARI 2000 process. From each of their different perspectives, they taught me how NASA works, how to engage, how to implement a program, and how to navigate office politics. And my sister and our conversations about leadership and what it means to be a servant leader. To be honest, there are scores more individuals who have contributed to my development that I don’t have the space to mention here.
      What are some of your guiding principles?
      Never lose the wonder — stay curious. “We” not “me.” Seeking to understand before being understood. We all stand on somebody’s shoulders. Humility rather than hubris. Respect. Be the change you wish to see.
      By Elizabeth M. Jarrell
      NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
      Conversations With Goddard is a collection of Q&A profiles highlighting the breadth and depth of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center’s talented and diverse workforce. The Conversations have been published twice a month on average since May 2011. Read past editions on Goddard’s “Our People” webpage.
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Nov 19, 2024 EditorMadison OlsonContactRob Garnerrob.garner@nasa.govLocationGoddard Space Flight Center Related Terms
      People of Goddard Goddard Space Flight Center People of NASA Explore More
      6 min read Matthew Kowalewski: Aerospace Engineer and Curious About Everything
      Matthew Kowalewski describes himself as “curious about too many things,” but that curiosity comes in…
      Article 7 days ago 6 min read Inia Soto Ramos, From the Mountains of Puerto Rico to Mountains of NASA Earth Data
      Dr. Inia Soto Ramos became fascinated by the mysteries of the ocean while growing up…
      Article 7 days ago 5 min read Carissa Arillo: Testing Spacecraft, Penning the Owner’s Manuals
      Article 3 weeks ago View the full article
    • By NASA
      Anthocyanins protect seeds in space

      After exposure to space outside the International Space Station, purple-pigmented rice seeds rich in anthocyanin had higher germination rates than non-pigmented white rice seeds. This result suggests that anthocyanin, a flavonoid known to protect plants from UV irradiation, could help preserve seed viability on future space missions.

      Plants are key components for systems being designed to produce nutrients and recycle carbon for future sustained space habitation, but space has been shown to reduce seed viability. Tanpopo-3, part of a series of investigations from JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency), examined the role of anthocyanins in maintaining seed viability. Results of this and previous experiments suggest that solar light in space is more detrimental to seeds than radiation.
      Preflight image of the Tanpopo panel used to expose seeds and other samples to space. Tanpopo-3 team Low-cost, autonomous technology validated for space research

      Researchers verified a pair of devices for conducting experiments in space that have multi-step reactions and require automatic mixing of solutions. This type of low-cost, autonomous technology expands the possibilities for space-based research, including work by commercial entities.

      Ice Cubes #6- Kirara, an investigation from ESA (European Space Agency) developed by the Japan Manned Space Systems Corporation, used a temperature-controlled incubator to crystallize proteins in microgravity. The Kirara facility also enables production of polymers, including cellulose, which have different uses than protein crystals. This experiment synthesized and decomposed cellulose.
      The Kirara incubator used for experiments in microgravity. United Arab Emirates/Sultan Alneyadi Insights from observations of an X-ray binary star

      Researchers used Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) to observe the timing of 15 X-ray bursts from 4U 1820–30, an ultracompact X-ray binary (UCXB) star. An X-ray binary is a neutron star orbiting a companion from which it takes matter. If confirmed with future observations, this result makes 4U 1820–30 the fastest-spinning neutron star known in an X-ray binary system and provides insights into the physics of neutron stars.

      NICER makes high-precision measurements of neutron stars (the ultra-dense matter created when massive stars explode as supernovas) and other phenomena to increase our understanding of the universe. NICER has monitored 4U 1820–30 since its launch in June 2017. A short orbital period indicates a relatively small binary system, and 4U 1820–30 has the shortest known orbital period among low-mass X-ray binaries.

      Animated image of a binary star system,NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Chris SmithView the full article
    • By NASA
      NASA researchers Guan Yang, Jeff Chen, and their team received the 2024 Innovator of The Year Award at the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, for their exemplary work on a lidar system enhanced with artificial intelligence and other technologies.
      Engineer Jeffrey Chen tests a lidar prototype on the roof of Building 33 at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Chen and his team earned the center’s 2024 Innovator of the Year award for their work on CASALS, a lidar system enhanced with artificial intelligence and other technologies.NASA Like a laser-based version of sonar, lidar and its use in space exploration is not new. But the lidar system Yang and Chen’s team have developed — formally the Concurrent Artificially-intelligent Spectrometry and Adaptive Lidar System (CASALS) — can produce higher resolution data within a smaller space, significantly increasing efficiency compared to current models.
      The true revolution in CASALS is a unique combination of related technologies, such as highly efficient laser and receiver designs, wavelength-based, non-mechanical beam steering, multispectral imaging, and the incorporation of artificial intelligence to allow the instrument to make its own decisions while in orbit, instead of waiting for direction from human controllers on the ground.
      “Existing 3D-imaging lidars struggle to provide the 2-inch resolution needed by guidance, navigation and control technologies to ensure precise and safe landings essential for future robotic and human exploration missions,” team engineer Jeffrey Chen said in an earlier interview. “Such a system requires 3D hazard-detection lidar and a navigation doppler lidar, and no existing system can perform both functions.”
      The CASALS lidar is being developed to study land and ice topography, coastline changes, and other Earth science topics. Future applications in solar system science beyond our planet are already in the works, including space navigation improvements and high-resolution lunar mapping for NASA’s Artemis campaign to return astronauts to the Moon.
      An effective and compact lidar system like CASALS could also map rocky planets like Venus or Mars.
      NASA leveraged contributions from external Small Business Innovation Research companies such as Axsun Technologies, Freedom Photonics, and Left Hand for laser and optical technology to help make CASALS a reality.
      The Internal Research and Development (IRAD) Innovator of The Year award is presented by Goddard’s Office of the Chief Technologist to a person or team within the program with a notable contribution to cutting-edge technology. The CASALS team was presented their award at a technology poster session on Nov. 6, 2024, at NASA Goddard.
      By Avery Truman
      NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Nov 15, 2024 EditorRob GarnerContactRob Garnerrob.garner@nasa.govLocationGoddard Space Flight Center Related Terms
      Goddard Technology Technology Explore More
      5 min read NASA, Industry Improve Lidars for Exploration, Science
      NASA engineers will test a suite of new laser technologies from an aircraft this summer…
      Article 8 months ago 4 min read Goddard Engineers Improve NASA Lidar Tech for Exploration
      Cutting edge innovations by NASA researchers seek to refine lidars into smaller, lighter, more versatile…
      Article 1 year ago 3 min read NASA Engineer Earns Goddard Innovation Award for Sun-studying Photon Sieves
      Goddard Engineer Kevin Denis receives innovation award for photon sieves.
      Article 1 year ago View the full article
    • By NASA
      3 min read
      Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
      Diana Oglesby’s love for NASA began long before she started working for the agency. A native of Decatur, Texas, Oglesby knew at the age of eight that she would make NASA her future destination. That dream became a reality when Oglesby joined the agency, first as an intern and later as a NASA full-time employee, marking the beginning of a career that would span over two decades.  


      From left, Richard Jones, CCP (Commercial Crew Program) deputy program manager at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston; Steve Stich, program manager for CCP; Dana Hutcherson, CCP deputy program manager at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida; and Diana Oglesby, director, Strategic Integration and Management Division, Space Operations Mission Directorate, pose with the agency’s SpaceX Crew-9 mission flag near the countdown clock at the NASA News Center at the Kennedy on Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2024.NASA/Cory S Huston Oglesby currently serves as director of the Strategic Integration and Management Division within NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters. The division plays a key role in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of space operations, providing essential business support such as programmatic integration, strategic planning, information technology and cybersecurity leadership, stakeholder outreach, and administrative services.  

      Before her current role, Oglesby led the business management function for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. She had a front-row seat to history during NASA’s SpaceX Demo-2 mission, which successfully launched astronauts to the International Space Station in the first commercially built and operated American rocket and spacecraft, marking a significant milestone in NASA’s space exploration efforts.  

      “It was an honor of a lifetime,” she says, reflecting on her role in this historic achievement.

      Oglesby’s ability to foster teamwork and genuine care for others has been a hallmark of her career, whether serving in NASA’s Commercial Crew Program or now guiding the Strategic Integration and Management Division. 

      While reflecting on her new role as division director, Oglesby is most excited about the people. As someone who thrives on diverse activities and complex challenges, she looks forward to the strategic aspects of her role and the opportunity to lead a dynamic team helping to shape NASA’s future. 
      The future is bright. We are actively building the future now with each choice as part of the agency's strategic planning and transition from current International Space Station operations to the new commercial low Earth orbit destinations.
      Diana Oglesby
      Director, Strategic Integration and Management Division, Space Operations Mission Directorate 
      “The future is bright,” said Oglesby. “We are actively building the future now with each choice as part of the agency’s strategic planning and transition from current International Space Station operations to the new commercial low Earth orbit destinations.” 

      While Oglesby is deeply committed to her work, she also believes in “work-life harmony” rather than a work-life balance, by giving her attention to the sphere of life she is currently in at that moment in time. She remains ever focused on harmonizing between her NASA duties and her life outside of work, including her three children. Oglesby enjoys spending time with her family, baking, crafting, and participating in her local church and various causes to support community needs.   

      Known for her positive energy, passion, and innovation, Oglesby always seeks ways to improve systems and make a difference in whatever project she is tackling. Her attention to detail and problem-solving approach makes her an invaluable leader at NASA. 
      NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate maintains a continuous human presence in space for the benefit of people on Earth. The programs within the directorate are the heart of NASA’s space exploration efforts, enabling Artemis, commercial space, science, and other agency missions through communication, launch services, research capabilities, and crew support. 


      To learn more about NASA’s Space Operation Mission Directorate, visit: 
      https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/space-operations
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Nov 14, 2024 Related Terms
      Space Operations Mission Directorate Strategic Integration and Management Division Explore More
      4 min read Precision Pointing Goes the Distance on NASA Experiment
      Article 2 hours ago 4 min read NASA Technologies Named Among TIME Inventions of 2024
      Article 2 weeks ago 3 min read Commercial Services User Group (CSUG)
      Article 3 weeks ago Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics
      Humans In Space
      International Space Station
      Commercial Space
      NASA Directorates
      View the full article
  • Check out these Videos

×
×
  • Create New...