>;C*zgfJ!~ 
 
 pii/JJ 
 
 >-"" 
 
 X 
 
 Report of 
 
 «p; 
 
 % 
 
 the Conferences,^ J* 
 
 
 HO 
 
 N** 
 
 \<3ft0 
 
 i j^i 
 
 \a. 
 
 r^biBm^ 
 
 & 
 
 
 A A 
 
 TIONAL 
 
 EANlfcv 
 
 TELLITE 
 
 I 
 
 03 
 
 -^J^U.S. Departmfentjof Commerce 
 
 ^National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 National Earth "Satellite Service 
 
 1 
 
 4? 
 
 'O 
 
 1^80 
 
 ,1 
 
Cover Description 
 
 Seasat scatterometer coverage of typhoon Wendy 
 over the East China Sea on July 30, 1978, 1056 (GMT). 
 Maximum winds recorded were 35 m/s. This illustra- 
 tion shows all possible wind vector solutions (up to 
 four) wherein vector length is proportional to wind 
 magnitude and the wind direction given by the vector 
 direction. This product is representative of surface 
 wind products potentially achievable from NOSS. 
 
 Illustration courtesy of the NASA Jet Propulsion 
 Laboratory Seasat Project and Dr. Peter Black of 
 NOAA's National Hurricane and Experimental Meteorology 
 Laboratory. 
 
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NATIONAL OCEANIC SATELLITE SYSTEM 
 
 Report Prepared By 
 
 John W. Sherman, III 
 NOAA/NESS/SPOC Group 
 S/RE x 3, Room 810, WWB 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 
 Conferences Managed By 
 
 Human Resources Management, Inc. 
 Suite 301 
 
 1101 30th Street, N.W. 
 Washington, D.C. 20007 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 
 NATIONAL EARTH SATELLITE SERVICE 
 
 SEPTEMBER 1980 
 
 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20402 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/reportofconferenOOconf 
 
PREFACE 
 
 All the rivers run into the sea; 
 yet the sea is not full; unto 
 the place from whence the rivers 
 come, thither they run again. 
 
 Ecclesiastes 
 
 Ancient wisdom included fundamental concepts on the nature of the cycles of the 
 Earth's hydrosphere Well before the introduction of coriolis forces, this same wisdom understood 
 "the wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about 
 continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." Only in more recent 
 times are concepts forthcoming that define the dynamics of this hydrosphere. 
 
 Modern science has demonstrated through such satellite systems as SKYLAB, GEOS-3, 
 Seasat and Nimbus-7 that both initial conditions and changes in the hydrosphere can be observed. 
 In particular the oceanic and ice planetary layer characteristics can be quantified. Global 
 assimilation of these measurements, tied with improved computing machines and modern 
 communication techniques, can benefit the ever increasing coastal population, the seafarer, the 
 climatologist, the ship router, the geophysicist, the fisherman, the meteorologist, the recreational 
 boater, the oceanologist, and all who need improved weather forecasts. 
 
 Plans are being evaluated within the Federal Government of the United States for a 
 National Oceanic Satellite System, a system designed to monitor the hydrosphere, to observe 
 "the place from whence the rivers come, thither they run again." 
 
 in 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 The five regional Conferences on the National Oceanic Satellite System involved 
 more than 400 participants who shared in the success of these Conferences and the first 
 steps in determining the nature and scope of the needs and requirements for oceanic 
 data to be derived from this proposed satellite program. 
 
 To all participants, moderators, presenters and chairs, we extend a sincere "thank 
 
 you". 
 
 Special acknowledgement is given to: Arthur G. DeCotiis (NESS) for his early 
 help in organizing and support during the Conferences, Robert L. Mairs (NESS) and Linda 
 K. Glover (NWS) for preparation of the report description of NOAA's oceanic satellite 
 products, and Madelyn Y. Bowman (NESS) for her dedicated and patient typing of the 
 first two drafts of the report. 
 
 The efficient, timely and professional support provided to the Conferences and the 
 final report preparation by Human Resources Management, Inc., is acknowledged with 
 great appreciation. Rhoda R. Habib of HRM deserves warm praise for her outstanding 
 assistance to the success of this endeavor. 
 
 W. John Hussey John W. Sherman, III 
 
 Deputy NOSS Program Manager Conference Coordinator 
 
OVERVIEW OF CONFERENCES 
 
 Approximately 400 persons participated in five Conferences on the potential National 
 Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS). These Conferences were sponsored by the National Oceanic 
 and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce in fulfillment of its 
 responsibilities to represent the civil marine community in National programs. 
 
 These five Conferences were held in: 
 
 Seattle, Washington May 19, 1980 
 
 La Jolla, California May 22, 1980 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts May 28, 1980 
 
 Key Biscayne, Florida June 3, 1980 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi June 5, 1980 
 
 Each Conference followed a morning format devoted to NOAA's oceanic space activities, and 
 an afternoon format focused on marine user requirements and the manner in which satellite- 
 derived data and information would address these user needs. 
 
 The purpose of this report is to document the presentations and discussions at the 
 
 Conferences and to present the initial analyses of the Conference Worksheets completed by 144 
 
 marine operational and research users. The report includes the points raised by these users and 
 
 presents a series of findings and concerns. These findings and concerns are not necessarily the 
 
 findings and concerns of the tri-agency NOSS Program sponsored jointly by the Navy, NASA and 
 
 NOAA, nor any other government agency. The report is published to enhance and continue the 
 dialogue between NOAA and the civil marine community that it represents. 
 
 Seven major points were common to each of the Conference discussions: 
 
 1. Major support exists in the oceanic community for the NOSS concept as a means 
 of addressing marine needs. This support is moderated by the experience of many of these 
 users who wish to have data from existing experimental satellites. This experience has shown 
 that extended lengths of time are required for the data to be obtained in useful formats. 
 
 2. This waiting experience creates a credibility problem for the proposed NOSS system 
 delivery times of a few hours. Users would like improved delivery times from other satellites 
 to demonstrate that it can be done. 
 
 3. Validation of the NOSS data and information is held essential by users who strongly 
 encourage development of a validation plan. The users believe that the validation plan requires 
 inclusion of actual marine users and therefore, representative user programs should be included. 
 
 VII 
 
The Conference participants believe that the success of NOSS will be judged best by those whom 
 NOSS will serve and not by those who serve NOSS. 
 
 4. The users endorse the Conference approach as a means of continuing communication 
 between the NOSS program and the marine community. Other suggestions include an advisory 
 committee, newsletters or bulletins, trade and professional journal publications on state-of-the-art 
 techniques and development, and audio/visual cassettes. Users in the commercial sector wish to 
 serve in a senior advisory capacity to NO A A on NOSS matters, and the R&D community also 
 feels it has an advisory role to both NASA and NOAA. 
 
 5. Discussions of data availability include considerations of vessel-at-sea needs, protected 
 retrospective use, compatibility with other data sets, and data source(s) for all forms of oceanic 
 data. NOSS will not have the most rudimentary form of data availability found on previous 
 environmental satellites (i.e., Automatic Picture Transmission capability); they believe such availability 
 is essential to NOSS data use. It is suggested that NOSS planners take an additional step to 
 include the near-real time wind, wave, temperature, ice, and water mass information needs of 
 at-sea users as a key component of the NOSS activity. 
 
 Users understand the need for protected data (i.e., data withheld for reasons of national 
 security), but would like retrospective use. Additionally, the users believe that NOSS data must 
 be fully compatible with other data, particularly data from other satellites. 
 
 Currently, different marine information is available from different components of NOAA. 
 Users anticipate that a major success for the NOSS program may not lie in the success of the 
 National Oceanic Satellite System, but in the creation of a national oceanic data system, which 
 includes data and information derived from satellites and other observing platforms such as ships 
 and buoys. 
 
 6. Some oceanic data users believe that a commitment is needed beyond the planned 
 five-year demonstration if investments are to be made by the marine community to use NOSS 
 data operationally. 
 
 7. Training in oceanic remote sensing for day-to-day use of NOSS-derived data is of 
 concern to users. In addition, research and development users suggest that a national facility is 
 needed to assimilate, process and analyze NOSS data, including the 25^ R&D growth capacity 
 for other oceanic experimentation. Oceanic researchers want to do scientific investigations and 
 not computer studies. 
 
 The findings and concerns of users, as expressed in the initial analyses of the Conference 
 Worksheets, are generally more specific than the points of commonality cited above. Data and 
 data telemetry, processing and training, dialogue and communications mechanisms, validation, and 
 support to research and development are the main categories of findings and concerns of the 
 Conferences. 
 
 No summary or conclusions of the Conferences have been prepared beyond this overview. 
 The Report itself is regarded as an element in the continuing dialogue between NOSS planners 
 and NOSS users, and this dialogue has not been concluded. 
 
 VIII 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 PREFACE "' 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v 
 
 OVERVIEW OF CONFERENCES vii 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS ix 
 
 LIST OF FIGURES xili 
 
 LIST OF TABLES xix 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 1. Purpose, Scope and Objectives of Conferences 
 
 2. Report Organization 
 
 3. Limitation 
 
 II. BACKGROUND 3 
 
 1. NOAA's New Civil Space Mission 
 
 2. NOAA's Existing Satellite Marine Products 
 
 3. Current Sources for Satellite-Derived Oceanic Products 
 
 4. Seasat and Nimbus-7 Oceanic Applications 
 
 III. NOSS PROGRAM 17 
 
 1 . Introduction 
 
 2. NOAA Responsibilities 
 
 3. NASA Responsibilities 
 
 4. Navy Responsibilities 
 
 5. Tri-Agency Program 
 
 6. NOAA Oceanic Data System 
 
 IV. REVIEW OF CONFERENCES 25 
 
 1. Structure of Conferences 
 
 2. Participation 
 
 3. Highlights of Topical Group Meetings 
 
 4. Worksheet Analyses and Results 
 
 5. Findings and Concerns 
 
 V. ON CONTINUING A DIALOGUE 4 ? 
 
 IX 
 
APPENDICES 
 
 Page 
 
 A. CONFERENCE ATTENDEES 49 
 
 1. List of Participants 
 
 2. Conference Presenters 
 
 3. Conference Management 
 
 B. CONFERENCE WORKSHEET AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY 83 
 
 1. Worksheet 
 
 2. Statistical Summary 
 
 C. SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE DISCUSSION TRANSCRIPTS 95 
 
 D. TEMPORAL RESOLUTION CONSTRAINTS OF POLAR ORBITING SATELLITES. .105 
 
 E. SENSOR DESCRIPTIONS FOR SEASAT AND NIMPUS-7 ni 
 
 F. NOSS BASELINE SENSOR DESCRIPTIONS 117 
 
 G. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 121 
 
 H. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 123 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
 Figure 
 Figure 
 
 Figure 
 Figure 
 Figure 
 Figure 
 Figure 
 
 Figure 
 Figure 
 
 Figure 
 
 11-10. 
 
 Figure 
 
 H-11. 
 
 Figure 
 
 11-12. 
 
 Figure 
 
 11-13. 
 
 Figure 
 
 IM4. 
 
 Figure 
 
 Ill— T - 
 
 Figure 
 
 111-2. 
 
 Figure 
 
 Ill— 3- 
 
 Figure 
 
 IV-1a 
 
 Figure 
 
 IV-lb 
 
 Figure 
 
 IV-U 
 
 Figure 
 
 IV-ld 
 
 1-1 . 
 
 1-2. 
 
 1-4. 
 1-5. 
 \-6. 
 1-7. 
 
 1-8. 
 1-9. 
 
 Page 
 GOSSTCOMP 5 
 
 Example of computer analysis combining sea surface temperatures from 
 
 satellite, ships, and data buoys 5 
 
 1-3. Example of Great Lakes surface temperature analysis of Lake Huron 6 
 
 Example of Great Lakes ice chart 6 
 
 Example of Alaskan ice chart 7 
 
 Example of Gulf Stream Wall Bulletin 9 
 
 Example of joint NWS/NESS Gulf Stream chart, combining analyses of 
 
 satellite infrared imagery with sea surface temperature data from ships 
 
 and data buoys 9 
 
 Seattle Ocean Services Unit (SOSU) chart 10 
 
 Example of west coast oceanographic analysis combining ocean fronts 
 
 observed on satellite infrared imagery with sea surface 
 
 temperature contours from ships and data buoys 
 
 10 
 
 Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) storm wind vectors 14 
 
 Scatter plot of significant waveheight comparisons 14 
 
 Difference of Seasat altimeter sea surface height and GEM 10B geoid for 
 
 North Atlantic Pass 15 
 
 Comparison of SMMR and expendable bathythermographics (XBT's) 15 
 
 Ocean fronts and chlorophyll-a and phaeophytin-a data for the Gulf of Mexico . . 16 
 
 NOSS organization 18 
 
 NOSS project organization 19 
 
 NOSS End-to-End System 21 
 
 Normalized comparison of commercial, academic, and government marine 
 data needs to be addressed by the NOSS tri-agency program 
 
 34 
 
 Normalized NOSS data requirements for commercial users 34 
 
 Normalized NOSS data requirements for academic users 35 
 
 Normalized NOSS data requirements for government users 35 
 
 XI 
 
Figire IV-2a. Distribution of near-real time data acquisition requirements 36 
 
 Figure IV-2b. Distribution of non-real time data acquisition requirements 36 
 
 Figure IV-3. Analysis of scales of coverage for marine data 38 
 
 Figure IV-4. Analysis of NOSS data distribution and communications techniques 38 
 
 Figure IV-5. Analysis of engineering data needs and comparison to geophysical data 
 
 requirements 39 
 
 Figure N-6, Continuity of near-real time data/analyses need 39 
 
 Figure IV-7. Analysis of combining or merging NOSS data sources 41 
 
 Figure IV-8. Experience with other satellites and relationship to marine data needs 
 
 and NOSS preparation 41 
 
 Figure IV-9. Analysis of data cost considerations 42 
 
 Figure IV— 10. Analysis of mechanisms for continuing dialogue between NOAA/NOSS 
 
 and users 42 
 
 Figure B-l. Tabulation of Commercial Users' Responses 90 
 
 Figure B-2. Tabulation of Academic Users' Responses 91 
 
 Figure B-3. Tabulation of Government Users' Responses 92 
 
 Figure D-1. Interdependence of altitude and inclination for sun-sychronous polar orbits 1 06 
 
 Figure D-2. CZCS global area coverage 106 
 
 Figure D-3. LAM MR global area coverage 107 
 
 Figure D-4. Scatterometer global area coverage 1° 7 
 
 Figure D-5. Scatterometer global area coverage at + 1 5 km 108 
 
 Figure E-1. Seasat-A instrument coverage 112 
 
 Figure E-2. Altimeter technical summary 112 
 
 Figure E-3. SASS technical summary 113 
 
 Figure E-4. SM M R technical sum mary 114 
 
 Figure E-5. SAR technical summary 114 
 
 Figure E-6. CZCS technical summary 11 5 
 
 XII 
 
Figure E-7. CZCS geometry 116 
 
 Figure F-1 . CZCS II baseline description 117 
 
 Figure F-2. LAM MR baseline description 118 
 
 Figure F-3. ALT baseline description 119 
 
 Figure F-4. SCATT baseline description 120 
 
 LIST OF TABLES 
 
 Page 
 
 Table IIM . NOSS Major Milestone Schedule 18 
 
 Table III— 2. Major Functional Ground Components of Tri-Agency NOSS 21 
 
 Table III — 3- NOSS Goals for Operational Measurements 22 
 
 Table 111-4. NOSS Sensor Characteristics 22 
 
 Table III— 5. NOSS Data Types 24 
 
 Table IV— 1 . Commercial Users 27 
 
 Table IV-2. Academic Institutions 27 
 
 Table IV-3. Federal Government Agencies 28 
 
 Table IV-4. Topical Group Moderators 32 
 
 Table IV-5. Tabulation of the Conference Worksheet Response to Organizational Type 32 
 
 XIII 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 1. Purpose, Scope and Objectives of 
 
 Conferences 
 
 The need for frequent and accurate 
 measurements of the marine environment has 
 increased dramatically during the past decade. 
 Accurate analysis and prediction of oceanic and 
 coastal conditions are essential for supporting rapidly 
 increasing maritime activities The National 
 
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NO A A) 
 of the Department of Commerce (DOC) recognizes 
 these new requirements for marine data, and is 
 responding through the expansion of existing oceanic 
 services programs and through participation in new 
 programs such as the National Oceanic Satellite 
 System (NOSS) operational demonstration. NOSS 
 is a tri-agency activity supported jointly by the 
 Department of Defense (DOD), National 
 Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 
 DOC. NOAA has the lead responsibility for services 
 to civil marine users. 
 
 NASA research and development spacecraft 
 programs (e.g. Nimbus-7, Seasat) have shown that 
 satellite observations can play an important role in 
 providing data for both the operational analysis of. 
 and research on, oceanic conditions. Building upon 
 these NASA programs. NOSS has been proposed 
 as a limited operational demonstration to test the 
 feasibility of obtaining measurements of surface 
 wind velocity, sea surface temperature, significant 
 waveheight, sea ice conditions, chlorophyll and other 
 optical characteristics, and current measurements 
 from a polar-orbiting satellite. NOAA operational 
 satellite systems now provide sea surface 
 temperature and sea ice data, but only under cloud- 
 free conditions. Because of the ability of 
 microwave sensors to effect surface observations 
 during cloudy conditions, NOSS microwave data are 
 expected to improve significantly the efficiency, 
 safety and effectiveness of marine transportation, 
 off-shore exploration and extraction, platform 
 operations construction, commercial fishing and 
 scientific knowledge of ocean surface dynamics. 
 
 The NOSS operational demonstration is 
 planned as a five-year program beginning with the 
 launch of the first spacecraft in mid-1986- The 
 four basic sensors that will provide the specified 
 oceanic data are a scatterometer, a microwave 
 radiometer, a microwave altimeter, and an ocean 
 
 color scanner. Other oceanic research and 
 development sensors may be flown on this system 
 as part of NASA's continuing space research 
 program. 
 
 Five one-day Conferences were held in May- 
 June, 1980, to inform marine users of the proposed 
 NOSS tri-agency program. The specific objectives 
 of these Conferences were to- 
 
 o Present the status of NOAA's new 
 
 space mission and NOSS technology 
 and development; 
 
 o Provide a description and status of 
 
 the tri-agency NOSS program; 
 
 o Obtain comment on user priorities 
 
 and requirements for NOSS data; and 
 
 o Develop methods by which the marine 
 
 community can influence the NOSS 
 data system configuration. 
 
 2. Report Organization 
 
 This report is organized to reflect an 
 overview of the presentations to the Conference 
 participants, the response of the participants to the 
 NOSS marine data goals and the initial analyses 
 of these responses. Specifically, Chapter II defines 
 NOAA's new civil space mission and its relationship 
 to NOSS, NOAA's present-day satellite-derived 
 marine products and the experience derived by the 
 oceanic community from using NASA's research 
 satellites. Chapter III is a summary of the NOSS 
 tri-agency program, including a brief review of 
 program management, sensor descriptions and 
 responsibilities of the three agencies. 
 
 Chapter IV, Review of Conferences, 
 delineates the real purpose of these Conferences; 
 i.e., to obtain early involvement of potential NOSS 
 data users to define the data products and 
 distribution system. This chapter briefly discusses 
 the organization of the Conferences, then defines 
 the types of participants and their marine data 
 needs as determined from both the topical group 
 meetings and the Conference Worksheets. The 
 initial analyses of these marine data needs form 
 
 1 
 
what may be the most interesting element of the 
 report. Chapter IV concludes with a summary of 
 these initial analyses in terms of a series of findings 
 and concerns. Chapter V briefly discusses the 
 methods by which communications between NOSS 
 designers and the oceanic community can be 
 continued. 
 
 Supporting the Conference Report are 
 appendices which contain information on the 
 Conference attendees, the Conference Worksheets 
 and statistical summary of these Worksheets, a 
 summary transcript of the closing discussions by 
 participants, specific limitations of the frequency 
 of coverage of polar-orbiting satellites, descriptions 
 of the NOSS heritage sensors flown on Seasat and 
 Nimbus-7, and the NOSS baseline sensor 
 descriptions. Closing the appendices are a glossary 
 of acronyms used in the report and a selected 
 bibliography of recent technical publications which 
 provide details on spacecraft oceanology. 
 
 3. 
 
 Limitation 
 
 It is emphasized that this report documents 
 the events which occurred during the Conferences 
 and summarizes the findings and concerns of the 
 participants. These findings and concerns are not 
 necessarily the findings and concerns of the tri— 
 agency NOSS Program, NASA, DOD/Navy, 
 DOC/NOAA nor any other government agency. 
 The report is published to enhance and continue 
 the dialogue between NOAA and the civil marine 
 community that it represents and serves. 
 
II. BACKGROUND 
 
 1- NO A As New Civil Space Mission 
 
 Last November the President of the United 
 States designated NOAA as the single agency to 
 manage the Nation's civil operational land remote 
 sensing activities from space in addition to its 
 ongoing atmospheric and oceanic satellite 
 responsibilities (Presidential Directive NSC-54; Nov. 
 16, 1979). NOAA's credentials in the field of 
 atmospheric and oceanic sciences and services are 
 well established. For the better part of two 
 decades, NOAA has been routinely managing and 
 operating environmental satellite systems and 
 providing data and products from those systems to 
 users worldwide. In naming NOAA as the civil 
 space program manager for operational land 
 systems, this past performance was certainly noted 
 and NOAA accepted willingly the Presidential 
 decision. With the addition of operational land 
 satellite programs NOAA is now the lead agency 
 for operational, civil, earth satellites. 
 
 NOAA currently operates two environmental 
 satellite systems- one system (two satellites) in 
 geo-stationary orbit and one system (two satellites) 
 in polar sun-synchronous orbit. Data received from 
 the complement of instruments aboard these 
 spacecraft are used in the production of a host 
 of meteorological and oceanographic products which 
 are available to the civilian user community. 
 
 NOAA, as a part of its R&D mission, 
 supports many satellite activities of NASA. This 
 NASA-led research has paved the way for NOSS 
 through a rich history of R&D satellite programs. 
 Most noteworthy for the marine community are 
 the 1978 launches of Seasat and Nimbus-7, whose 
 oceanic sensors form the basic instrument package 
 for NOSS. Indeed, with the exception of the 
 Seasat Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) System, 
 NOSS combines the benefits of these two NASA 
 satellites to permit the Navy, NASA and NOAA 
 to conduct a limited operational demonstration 
 beginning in the mid-1980's. 
 
 The key to NOAA's success in meeting the 
 users' needs for NOSS data is an accurate definition 
 of data requirements. This can only be achieved 
 through close coordination with the marine 
 community throughout the planning and 
 implementation phases of the NOSS program. This 
 
 close coordination will bring about a marine data 
 system with the capability of meeting the civilian 
 oceanic community's needs throughout the lifetime 
 of the NOSS program and beyond. NOAA's success 
 in its NOSS mission will be the result of full 
 coordination with the efforts of the oceanic 
 community. 
 
 2. NOAA's Existing Satellite Marine Products 
 
 Data from .both the GOES geostationary 
 and the TIROS-N polar-orbiting satellite systems 
 are used to produce several of NOAA's existing 
 operational marine products. These products are 
 produced at the National Environmental Satellite 
 Service (NESS) central facilities, and at the Satellite 
 Field Services Stations and National Weather Service 
 Offices having oceanic support responsibilities. 
 
 The primary data sources for these products 
 are GOES and TIROS-N infrared and visible data. 
 These data are received at the data receiving 
 locations from the NESS Command and Data 
 Acquisition facilities at Wallops Island, Virginia, and 
 Gilmore Creek, Alaska. They are also acquired 
 directly from the polar orbiting satellites via direct 
 readout, High Resolution Picture Transmission 
 (HRPT) and Automatic Picture Transmission (APT). 
 
 Examples of Products 
 
 Global Operational Sea Surface Temperature 
 Computation (GOSSTCOMP): Global sea surface 
 temperature (SST) observations are obtained daily 
 from the polar-orbiting satellite's Advanced Very 
 High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR). The model 
 used to obtain these temperatures is a fully 
 automated computer procedure. Surface 
 temperatures are derived by a histogram technique 
 applied to a matrix of instrument measurements 
 in 50- and 100-km areas. Corrections for 
 atmospheric attenuation are computed and applied 
 to the temperature retrievals. The model generates 
 30,000 to 40.000 time- and earth-located values 
 of sea surface temperature daily. The derived 
 observations are stored on computer disk for NOAA 
 360/195 terminal users, entered onto a magnetic 
 tape for archive at the Environmental Data and 
 Information Services' (EDIS) Satellite Data Services 
 Division (SDSD), and used to produce an observation 
 
transmission tape (when required) and a global 
 analyzed field. 
 
 The global analyzed field is used to produce 
 two types of products, photographic displays and 
 gridded fields. The photographic displays enable 
 the user to view the global SST pattern and the 
 spatial distribution of observations used in the 
 analysis. The gridded fields (Figure 11-1) are 
 contoured displays of sea surface temperatures in 
 intervals of 1 degree C. They are available as 
 Mercator projections from 70 degrees N to 70 
 degrees S latitude and in polar-stereographic 
 projections for the remainder of the globe. The 
 gridded fields are mailed to users once a week. 
 
 In December, 1978, NOAA's National 
 Weather Service (NWS) also began producing 
 synoptic, global sea surface temperature analyses. 
 These analyses combine remote measurements 
 made by satellites with direct sea surface 
 temperature reports received from ships and data 
 buoys. A two-step objective analysis is used. The 
 first step is to establish a reliable "first guess" 
 field; this is the sum of the present anomaly field 
 (based upon data from the past 10 days) and the 
 long-term average field. The second step is to 
 correct the "first guess" field with recent 
 observations. A percentage of each correction, 
 depending on distance, is applied to each of the 
 surrounding grid points. A numerical procedure 
 known as "conditional relaxation" is used to spread 
 the influence of the observations over the entire 
 grid. 
 
 The global analyses are available from NWS 
 by mail. Regional analyses are available for the 
 Atlantic northwest (Figure II-2), the Pacific 
 northeast, and the Gulf of Mexico, by mail and 
 by the National Facsimile (NAFAX) Network. The 
 SST data are used in numerical forecast models 
 as support for other NO A A oceanic products and 
 services, in development of climatology over ocean 
 areas that are inaccessible using conventional 
 observing methods, in various research activities 
 and by commercial fisheries. 
 
 Great Lakes Surface Temperature Analysis: 
 Analyses of the Great Lakes surface temperatures 
 are produced as observed (whenever cloud free) 
 using the data obtained from the polar-orbiting 
 
 satellite's AVHRR. The data are computer-analyzed 
 for each of the five Great Lakes, with a contour 
 interval of 2 degrees C. The final product (Figure 
 11-3) is then manually adjusted for accuracy and 
 mailed to users. 
 
 The surface temperature analyses are useful 
 in determining the rate of lake freeze and areas 
 of upwelling. With this knowledge, plus observed 
 weather and ice conditions, a forecast can be made 
 for the routing of ships and for predicting the 
 length of the shipping season. The Great Lakes 
 surface temperature analysis is used by NWS, 
 commercial marine transportation, Great Lakes 
 research concerns and internally in NESS. 
 
 Great Lakes and Alaskan Ice Charts: The 
 Great Lakes and Alaskan ice charts are detailed 
 1-km resolution analyses of the boundaries and type 
 or age of ice observed from satellite imagery. 
 The Great Lakes' freshwater ice is viewed, when 
 cloud free, by the polar-orbiting satellite's AVHRR. 
 A chart (Figure 11-4) is prepared twice weekly and 
 sent to users via the NAFAX Network and by 
 mail. The chart defines the fast-ice and ice-free 
 areas as well as the ice concentration and leads. 
 
 The Alaskan sea ice is also viewed, when 
 cloud free, by the polar-orbiting satellite's AVHRR. 
 A chart (Figure 11-5) is prepared once a week and 
 sent to users via NAFAX and by mail. The chart 
 reveals the fast-ice and ice-free areas as well as 
 the ice concentration, age and leads. 
 
 Both analyses are useful to NWS in its 
 forecasting of ice conditions and ship routing. The 
 Great Lakes ice chart is prepared at NWS' Weather 
 Service Forecast Office (WSFO) at Ann Arbor, 
 Michigan, and updated in the Navy/NOAA Joint 
 Ice Center. The Alaskan ice chart is prepared at 
 the Joint Ice Center in Suitland, Maryland. The 
 ice charts are used by commercial marine 
 transportation, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, 
 the National Marine Fisheries Service and various 
 research concerns. 
 
 Gulf Stream Analysis: The position and 
 current direction of the Gulf Stream and its 
 associated warm and cold eddies are helpful to a 
 number of marine users. The commercial shipping 
 industry can save fuel by steaming in the current 
 
o 
 
 3 
 i-f 
 03 
 u 
 09 
 
 a 
 
 E 
 s 
 
 +■■ 
 
 CD 
 O" 
 
 CO «~ 
 t C 
 3 '- 
 
 CO V) 
 
 a 3 
 
 </> ° 
 
 u> c 
 
 = o 
 
 I ° 
 
 -Q to 
 
 E > 
 
 o § 
 
 u 5 
 
 CO 
 
 ■5 2 
 
 <o c 
 
 s ■ 
 H.& 
 
 E-S 
 
 o . 
 
 u 0) 
 
 x- .tr 
 o = 
 
 E E 
 
 HI it 
 
 CM 
 
 3 
 
 il 
 
 o 
 oo 
 
 (XI 
 
 4D 
 
 o 
 a* 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 I- 
 w 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 ^ 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 ■O 
 
 u-« 
 
 i/-> 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
l/l 
 
 z 
 . o 
 
 £^ 
 z 2 < 
 
 <, -£ 
 
 "I -i UJ 
 — ' in 
 
 — ^ co 
 
 "> ul o 
 
 H ul 
 
 < < (J 
 
 <y 2; 
 
 o a or 
 
 3 
 
 UJ 
 
 L/-1 
 
 IjuiO 
 
 lu s «, 
 _or<=> 
 
 |ss 
 
 U- H •" 
 v U ul 
 
 ii°;»- 
 
 "J « 
 ui ui 
 3 z z 
 
 f o;< 
 
 UJ Ul X 
 
 m h (- 
 
 H 
 ~<o: 
 
 u o. iu 
 
 ■H < UJ 
 
 -5 m 
 i/i* ~ 
 <£ . 
 
 CO I- Ul 
 -I Ul t 
 
 S 3 
 
 □ O 
 
 u>- 
 
 < 
 
 a. 5 
 
 u 
 
 j; 
 
 S IZ 
 
 O ui iu 
 or Z Ul 
 
 a. o CO 
 
 "~ < < 
 
 I- J X 
 
 ok 
 
 z ^ > 
 
 ui ui -J 
 - < CO 
 
 dm r 
 ui s or 
 
 0. in 
 
 XM Q 
 
 ul U - 
 
 < Ul 
 
 o u. z 
 t- or o 
 
 3(J 
 
 Ul 
 
 1/1 
 
 u 
 
 Ul 
 
 . a. 
 
 5 
 
 Q _l 
 
 o<„ 
 
 eat 
 
 as ^ 
 Ul — < 
 - a 
 
 t~ id z 
 
 ?Qt 
 U)Z < 
 Ul < .„ 
 O 2 
 
 u z 
 
 in 3 ul 
 
 "Oq 
 KO < 
 
 Ul °- O - 
 
 u t/)„ u 
 
 Z - Q • 
 
 UlIZ' 
 X H < M 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 "T" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a. 
 or 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 hi 
 
 
 
 
 
 111 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 It 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~) 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 1- 
 < 
 
 < 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 a\ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 
 
 1*1 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ul 
 
 Z 
 
 
 Ul 
 
 IX 
 
 a 
 
 Ul 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 D 
 
 z 
 
 
 or 
 
 l/l 
 
 CD 
 O 
 
 Ul 
 
 H 
 
 Ul 
 
 K- 
 < 
 
 Ul 
 
 Ul 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 Ul 
 
 l/l 
 
 -u 
 7 
 
 l/l 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 z 
 O 
 1- 
 (1 
 
 a 
 
 Ul 
 
 
 ..1 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 7 
 
 > 
 
 
 -J 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 or 
 
 
 or 
 
 
 
 u. 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 X 
 
 Ul 
 
 
 1- 
 
 IY 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 a) 
 
 l^ 
 
 Ul 
 
 <r 
 
 < 
 
 n 
 
 z. 
 
 O 
 
 * 
 
 < 
 
 co 
 
 _i 
 
 l/l 
 
 Ul 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 3 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 i- 
 
 • 
 
 3 
 (0 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 4> 
 
 Q. 
 
 C 
 
 F 
 
 
 0) 
 
 Ul 
 
 *-> 
 
 V. 
 
 
 3 
 
 4) 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 4-> 
 
 ID 
 
 c 
 
 '*- 
 
 n 
 
 3 
 
 U 
 
 l/l 
 
 
 41 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 X 
 
 -*- 
 
 
 IT> 
 
 4i 
 
 4> 
 
 -X 
 
 u 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 _l 
 
 o o 
 
 (0 TO 
 
 X c 
 
 uj co 
 
 41 
 
 3 
 01 
 
I50E 
 
 I55E 
 
 I75E 
 
 Figure 11-5. Example of Alaskan ice chart 
 
on northbound trips and avoiding it when traveling 
 south along the coast. Commercial fishermen 
 locate some species of fish near thermal boundaries 
 like the Gulf Stream west wall or eddies which 
 influence fish movement. The US. Coast Guard 
 needs Gulf Stream flow information for search- 
 and-rescue operations. Other users include 
 recreational boaters and marine research activities. 
 
 The Gulf Stream Wall Bulletin (Figure 11-6) 
 informs the mariner of the position of the Gulf 
 Stream's west wall; the fastest currents are usually 
 found about 25 km seaward of this line. The 
 position of the Gulf Stream Wall to 40 degrees 
 N is analyzed three times a week, using 
 geostationary satellite infrared imagery. Bulletins 
 are broadcast twice daily by the U.S. Coast Guard. 
 
 In April, 1980, NOAA began issuing a 
 handdrawn analysis, prepared jointly by NESS and 
 NWS, of thermal features in the Gulf Stream 
 region. Data used in the analysis include infrared 
 imagery from polar-orbiting and geostationary 
 satellites, sea surface temperature from ships and 
 buoys, subsurface temperature from ships to check 
 structure of surface features and seasonal sea ice 
 analysis from the Joint Ice Center. The analysis 
 is presented in two panels with the Gulf Stream 
 area north of Cape Hatteras (Figure 11-7), updated 
 thrice weekly, and the Gulf of Mexico/Florida 
 Straits area up to 35 degrees N, updated twice 
 weekly. Features shown include position of the 
 Gulf Stream and Loop Current; other major thermal 
 fronts in the area (slope front, subtropical 
 convergence); Gulf Stream and Loop Current 
 eddies, with their size and flow direction; sea ice 
 edge; and spot SST's. These charts are available 
 weekly by mail and daily via NAFAX. 
 
 West Coast Thermal Front Analysis: The 
 thermal front analysis of the waters off the west 
 coast of the United States is used in locating areas 
 of improved fishing for California fishermen. When 
 upwelling occurs off the coast, the cold waters 
 abound with nutrients, and along the boundaries 
 between cold and warm waters the fish tend to 
 gather to feed. Albacore tuna and salmon 
 fishermen are the primary users of this kind of 
 information. 
 
 Analyses are performed, cloud cover 
 permitting, as often as possible using satellite 
 infrared imagery from the AVHRR on TIROS-N 
 and from the Visible Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer 
 (VISSR) on GOES. The thermal fronts are drawn 
 on a gridded chart (Figure 11-8) and sent out via 
 telecopier to locations along the California coast. 
 The normal areas covered are from 50 degrees 
 N to 30 degrees N latitude, 4 degrees off the 
 coast of California, but other areas are available 
 upon request. A plastic overlay showing navigation 
 lines and bathymetric contours is available also on 
 request. 
 
 NWS' Seattle Ocean Services Unit (SOSU) 
 produces a west coast oceanographic analyis (Figure 
 11-9). It combines ocean thermal fronts identified 
 from satellite infrared imagery with sea surface 
 temperature contours from ship and data buoy 
 observations. The SOSU chart includes Loran-C 
 navigation lines to aid fishermen in locating the 
 thermal fronts. 
 
 3. Current Sources for Satellite-Derived Oceanic 
 
 Products 
 
 Near-Real Time Data Services 
 
 The above listed samples of oceanographic 
 products, derived wholly or in part from operational 
 satellites, have been developed over the past decade 
 by NESS and NWS and are presently produced at 
 regionally located field sites in Anchorage, AK; 
 Seattle, WA; San Francisco, CA; Miami, FL; and 
 Washington, DC. For more information on what 
 may be available by region, please contact either: 
 
 Mr. Bertrand J. Thompson 
 
 NOAA/NWS 
 
 Gramax Bldg., Rm. 1213 
 
 Silver Spring, MD 20910 
 
 or 
 
 Mr. Robert L. Mairs 
 NOAA/NESS 
 WWB, Rm. 607 
 Washington, DC 
 20233 
 
 Non-Real Time Data Services 
 
 The Environmental Data and Information 
 Service (EDIS) of NOAA is the first Federal 
 organization created specifically to manage 
 environmental data and information. EDIS acquires, 
 processes, archives, analyzes and disseminates world- 
 
 8 
 
PTTUZYUW RUEOLMA0021 1891855T UUUUTTRUCLFOA RULYWCA RUCLFLA 
 RUEBBRA RUCBNAF. 
 ZHR UUUUU 
 P 071855Z JUL 30 
 
 FM NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SERVICE 
 TO RUCLFOA/CGRADSTA MIAMI CCGD7 
 RULYWCA/CGCOMMSTA PORTSMOUTH 
 RUCLFLA/NAVOCEANO BAY ST LOUIS MISS 
 RUEBBRA/PATRON FOUR NINE 
 RUCBNAF/NAVFAC LEWES OE 
 BT 
 
 un a AS 
 
 GULF STREAM LOCATION. THE LTNE DESCRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING 
 SEQUENCE OF POINTS REPRESENTS THE WEST WALL OF THE GULF STREAM. 
 
 27.0/80.0 
 32.2/78.8 
 36.6/73.0 
 37.6/69.3 
 38.6/65.5 
 
 29.0/80.0 
 34.3/76.0 
 57.5/71.4 
 38.5/68.6 
 37.6/63.1 
 
 31.5/79.5 
 35.0/74.7 
 37.8/70.8 
 58.4/67.6 
 
 THE MAXIMUM CURRENT OF THE 6ULF STREAM LIES BETWEEN 12T15 MILES 
 
 SEAWARD OF THIS LINE. 
 
 COLD EDDIES 34.0/72.9/90 NMI. DIAfl 
 
 WARM EDDIES 39.0/71.5/90 NMI. D IAM 41.4/62.5/80 AMI. DIAM 
 
 LATEST SATELLITE DATE 7/7/80 12001 
 
 Figure 11-6. Example of Gulf Stream Wall Bulletin. Positions coded as 
 follows: 31.5/79.5 means 31.5°N 79.5°W. Location and 
 size of cold and warm Culf Stream eddies are also given. 
 
 OCEANOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 
 date 18 June 1980 
 
 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 
 
 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SERVICE 
 
 Figure 11-7. Example of joint NWS/NESS Culf Stream chart, combining analyses of satellite 
 
 infrared imagery with sea surface temperature data from ships and data buoys. 
 
'%i??n? Ajza 
 
 
 
 a> 
 
 k- 
 
 
 > 
 
 *- 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 C0 
 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 to 
 
 a 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 F 
 
 
 n 
 
 O 
 
 CD 
 
 > 
 
 co 
 o 
 
 ■a 
 2 
 
 0) 
 
 u 
 
 en 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 -Q 
 
 c 
 
 CD 
 0) 
 
 0) 
 
 3 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 ■D 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 (0 
 
 
 
 ■o 
 
 C 
 
 </) 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 en 
 
 Q. 
 
 1/1 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 
 £■ 
 
 .C 
 <n 
 
 ? 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 
 cu 
 
 E 
 
 H- 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 
 (0 
 
 F 
 
 o 
 
 ci> 
 
 c 
 
 
 irt 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 ?, 
 
 D 
 
 E 
 
 .a 
 
 E 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 o 
 u 
 
 Q> 
 
 3 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 oo 
 
 CO 
 
 en 
 
 a. 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 Ul 
 
 o 
 
 (- 
 
 T) 
 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 LL 
 
 :> 
 
 (/) 
 
 a> 
 
 
 n 
 
 r?> 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 oe 
 o* 
 
 05 
 
 051- 001 OS 
 
 CO 
 
 _i 
 
 
 / / / 
 
 o 
 
 / / / 
 
 CO 
 
 
 O 
 
 / / 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 
 III 
 
 00 L OS 
 
 co.^; 
 
 COO 
 
 CO 
 
 °? 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
wide environmental (atmospheric, marine, solar and 
 solid earth) data and information for use by 
 commerce, industry, the scientific and engineering 
 communities, and the general public, as well as 
 by Federal, state and local governments. It also 
 assesses the impact of environmental fluctuations 
 on food production, energy production and 
 consumption, environmental quality, and other 
 economic systems; and manages or provides 
 functional guidance for NOAA's scientific and 
 technical publication and library activities. In 
 addition, EDIS operates related World Data Center- 
 A subcenters and participates in other international 
 data and information exchange programs. To carry 
 out its mission, EDIS operates a network of 
 specialized service centers and computerized 
 environmental data and information retrieval 
 services. EDIS' involvement with satellite data 
 services is extensive at present and is expanding 
 to improve support to its users. 
 
 Satellite Data Services Division (SDSD): 
 SDSD is an arm of the EDIS National Climatic 
 Center and provides operational NOAA 
 environmental satellite data to secondary users once 
 the original collection purposes (i.e., weather 
 forecasting) have been satisfied. The Division also 
 provides some NASA experimental satellite data, 
 including Seasat data. 
 
 Satellite data available from SDSD include: 
 
 o Full-disc and sectorized images from 
 
 the Synchronous Meteorological 
 Satellites (SMS>-1 and -2 and the 
 current operational geostationary 
 spacecraft, GOES. 
 
 In addition to visible region imagery, infrared 
 data are also available from these satellites. Each 
 day, SDSD receives several hundred negatives from 
 polar-orbiting and geostationary spacecraft and 
 several special negatives and movie film loops. 
 Queries should be addressed to: 
 
 EDIS, Satellite Data Services Division 
 World Weather Building, Room 100 
 Washington, DC 20233 
 (301) 763-81 1 1 
 
 EDIS Centers and Services: Many 
 applications of satellite data benefit from 
 comparative data sets ("surface truth"). In the 
 absence of real time comparative data sets, 
 historical data are capable of providing a statistical 
 base for comparison. In many cases, continuing 
 satellite observations can be calibrated using 
 historical data and a minimum of absolute surface 
 data. 
 
 EDIS operates the following discipline- 
 oriented centers capable of providing historical data 
 and services: 
 
 Data from the TIROS (Television and 
 Infrared Observational Satellite) series 
 of environmental spacecraft; 
 
 Imagery gathered by the NASA 
 experimental Nimbus-7 and Seasat 
 spacecraft; 
 
 Full-earth disk photographs from 
 NASA's Applications Technology 
 Satellites (ATS)-I and -III geostationary 
 research spacecraft; 
 
 Thousands of images from the original 
 ESSA and NOAA series of Improved 
 TIROS Operational Satellites (ITOS); 
 and 
 
 National Climatic Center 
 Federal Building 
 Asheville, NC 28801 
 (704) 258-2850, Ext. 683 
 
 National Oceanographic Data Center 
 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW 
 Washington, DC 20235 
 (202) 634-7500 
 
 National Geophysical and 
 
 Solar-Terrestrial Data Center 
 325 Broadway 
 Boulder, CO 80303 
 (303) 497-6215 
 
 Additionally, the EDIS Center for 
 Environmental Assessment Services (CEAS) is 
 actively involved in the use of meteorological and 
 
 11 
 
Landsat satellite data in both research and 
 monitoring activities. For further meteorological 
 information, contact: 
 
 CEAS 
 
 Marine Environmental Assessment Division 
 
 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W., Room 162 
 
 Washington, DC 20235 
 
 (202) 634-7379 
 
 Seasat Scatterometer System (SASS) - This 
 14.5 GHz radar illuminated the ocean surface 
 for a distance up to 1000 km on either 
 side of the sub-satellite track, and recorded 
 the strength of the radar return. Surface 
 wind vectors (up to three aliases) were 
 produced for spatial resolution cells 50 x 
 50 km. 
 
 For further Landsat information, contact: 
 
 EROS Data Center 
 
 USGS 
 
 Sioux Falls, SD 57198 
 
 (605) 594-6511 
 
 The Environmental Science Information 
 Center (ESIC) coordinates NOAA's library and 
 information services and its participation in the 
 national network of scientific information centers 
 and libraries. For further information, contact: 
 
 ESIC 
 
 Library and Information Services Division 
 
 6O09 Executive Boulevard 
 
 Rockville, MD 20852 
 
 (301) 443-8358 
 
 4. Seasat and Nimbus-7 Oceanic Applications 
 
 Introduction and Sensor Description 
 
 Seasat, launched in June 1978, was a proof- 
 of-concept ocean-survey satellite instrumented to 
 measure boundary layer winds, waves, ocean surface 
 temperatures and topography, sea ice and coastal 
 environmental factors. The Seasat mission ended 
 prematurely in October 1978, due to a catastrophic 
 power failure. At that time, about 100 days of 
 global data had been recorded. 
 
 were: 
 
 Seasat carried five primary sensors. They 
 
 Altimeter - A nadir-viewing, 3 ns radar 
 operated at 13.5 GHz to measure verticle 
 distance from the spacecraft to the ocean 
 surface, and to measure significant 
 waveheight and surface wind speed. 
 
 Scanning Multi-channel Microwave 
 Radiometer (SMMR) - This radiometer 
 measured microwave radiation at 6.6, 10.7, 
 18, 21 and 37 GHz to derive sea surface 
 temperature, surface wind speed (no 
 direction), atmospheric water vapor and liquid 
 water, and sea ice. Only very limited 
 amounts of data have been processed to 
 date. 
 
 Visible and Infrared Radiometer (VI RR) - 
 The VI RR was a modified version of the 
 earlier TIROS-type satellite Scanning 
 Radiometer (SR). The VIRR provided earth 
 scene images in the visible and infrared 
 wavelength regions for cloud/land feature 
 identification. In the absence of clouds, the 
 infrared channel provided sea surface 
 temperature features over the oceans. 
 
 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) - The SAR, 
 an L-band radar operated at 1.27 GHz, had 
 excellent cloud and rain penetration 
 capability. It illuminated a swath 100 km 
 wide, and provided spatial resolution of 25 
 m in both range and azimuth. SAR data 
 were used to measure dominant ocean 
 wavelength and direction, to study coastal 
 processes and to provide information on sea 
 and lake ice dynamics. 
 
 Nimbus-7 is a research and development 
 satellite for atmospheric sciences, environmental 
 pollution and oceanology. The oceanic instruments 
 aboard this spacecraft are: 
 
 Scanning Mult i- channel Microwave 
 Radiometer (SMMR) - The SMMR on 
 Nimbus-7 is identical to the SMMR on 
 Seasat as described above. 
 
 12 
 
Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) - The 
 CZCS measures chlorophyll concentration 
 and the diffuse attenuation coefficient, k. 
 The wavelengths of operation are centered 
 at 443, 520, 550, 670, 750 nm and a 
 thermal channel at 1 1. 5 yum. Spatial resolution 
 is 850 m with a swathwidth exceeding 
 1500 km. 
 
 Both Nimbus-7 oceanic instruments are still 
 collecting data. 
 
 Summary of Applications 
 
 This section gives examples of measurements 
 taken during the Seasat and Nimbus-7 missions 
 from the heritage instruments for NOSS, i.e., the 
 Altimeter, the SASS, the SMMR and the CZCS. 
 
 Winds: Seasat scatterometer-derived surface 
 wind vectors, superimposed on a VHRR image, are 
 shown in Figure 11-10 for one of the most intense 
 extratropical cyclones to have occurred over the 
 North Atlantic during the Seasat mission. This 
 storm has been termed the Queen Elizabeth II 
 (QEII) storm since that vessel incurred $50,000 
 in damage from high seas and injury to more than 
 20 of the 1213 passengers when it passed through 
 the most intense portion of the storm in a west- 
 bound trans- Atlantic crossing. At the height of 
 the storm, waves in excess of 50 feet and winds 
 of 60-65 knots were observed. 
 
 Shown in Figure II— 1 are wind vectors 
 reported by Seasat on two consecutive orbits (1 093, 
 1094), on September 11, 1978, which occurred 
 within hours of 1200 GMT, the time the QEII 
 encountered the worst elements of the storm. 
 Other ships in the vicinity reporting at 1200 GMT 
 on September 11, 1978, established that winds 
 exceeded gale force (35 knots or 18 m/s) at least 
 550 km in all directions away from the storm 
 center. Comparisons of Seasat wind vectors with 
 analyzed field values show rms errors of 2 m/s in 
 wind speed and 16 degrees in direction. 
 
 Waves: Studies of Seasat Altimeter data 
 for significant waveheight (H . ) measurements 
 have been carried out using Ocean Weather Station 
 PAPA and NO A A data buoy observations of sea 
 state for comparisons. Figure 11-11 shows a scatter 
 
 plot of the significant waveheight comparisons. 
 The data are separated into two groups to identify 
 observations taken <80 km and >80 km from the 
 Altimeter measurements. The data show a mean 
 difference of -0.29 m with a standard deviation 
 of ±0.22 m for waveheights ranging from 1 to 5 
 m. 
 
 Currents: Studies of radar altimetry for 
 height measurements are illustrated in Figure 11-12 
 which shows the difference between Seasat 
 Altimeter measurements and a model geoid (GEM 
 10B) for a 5 x 5 grid. These Seasat data, 
 taken on July 10, 1978, during orbit 191, commence 
 over Puerto Rico and extend to the shores of the 
 United States. Features of interest are the 
 geostrophic current system of the Gulf Stream, 
 identified by a slope slightly greater than 1 m in 
 about 25 km, and the Puerto Rico Trench which 
 shows a 15-m depression over a distance of about 
 850 km. These examples show the precision with 
 which measurements of ocean surface topography 
 can be made from satellites. This figure also 
 illustrates the requirement to have a good geodetic 
 data base. 
 
 Sea Surface Temperature: As noted in 
 Section 2 above, SST-related measurements are 
 made on a routine basis from operational satellites. 
 The SMMR instrument on Seasat and Nimbus-7 is 
 the first space attempt to measure SST using the 
 microwave portion of the electromagnetic 
 spectrum. The inherent advantage of cloud 
 penetration by microwave energy will eliminate a 
 major impediment found in the measurement with 
 infrared (IR) sensors. However, the advantage 
 gained in penetrating clouds is offset by the poorer 
 spatial resolution and thermal sensitivity of 
 microwave radiometers to measure SST. Hence, 
 the real advantage to the oceanic community is 
 anticipated in merging both IR- and microwave- 
 derived SST data. 
 
 The spatial resolution of SMMR for SST is 
 about 100 km, while typical SST data is collected 
 at a single point. The SST comparison between 
 SMMR and expendable bathythermographs (XBT's) 
 is shown in Figure 11-13. The filtering indicated 
 on this figure for data processing eliminates (1) all 
 data within 200 km of land; (2) all data 
 contaminated by solar reflection from the ocean 
 
 13 
 
IT) 
 
 •v T. 
 
 (A 
 
 O 
 
 IU 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 (0 
 
 uu 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 r> > 
 
 
 Q 
 
 O) 
 
 UJ 
 
 0) 
 
 Oi 
 
 x: 
 I 
 
 to 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 IU 
 
 *- 
 
 
 c 
 
 -£ 
 
 (0 
 
 CN . 
 
 u 
 
 >- 
 
 s- 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 z> 
 
 '« 
 
 CO 
 
 H- 
 
 \ 
 
 o 
 
 0- 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 — V) 
 
 CD 
 
 
 ■w 
 
 
 +-» 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 c/> 
 
 w '1H0IDH3AVM Q3iinSV3W-H313WinV 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 > 
 
 c 
 
 E 
 
 •_ 
 o 
 
 LU 
 
 a 
 
 -Q 
 <o 
 
 lD 
 c 
 
 IU 
 
 <v 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 O) 
 
 14 
 
o 
 
 ai 
 
 Q 
 
 re 
 o 
 
 uj 
 
 10.0 
 
 ' 
 
 \ 1 ! 
 
 
 7 GEOID FEATURE 
 
 NEW YORK, 
 
 
 / (ISLAND ARC) 
 
 /GEOID FEATURE GEOID FEATURE, \ 
 /(DUE TO PLATE \ V 
 
 
 
 • \ / 
 
 ^BUCKLING) ^-^T\ \ f 
 
 
 \ PUERTO / 
 
 GULF STREAM ' /\ 
 
 
 L RIC0 ./ 
 
 WARM WATER EDDY/ \ 
 
 
 V TRENCH / 
 
 
 10.0 
 
 
 CONTINENTAL RISE -^ 
 
 20.0 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 i 
 
 i i i — — 
 
 
 
 840 
 
 1680 2520 
 
 DISTANCE, km 
 
 3360 4200 
 
 Figure 11-12. Difference of Seasat Altimeter Sea Surface Height and GEM 10B 
 Geoid for North Atlantic Pass (7/10/78, Rev 191) 
 
 ■ 
 
 -i 
 
 50. 
 
 25 
 
 (j 
 
 20 
 
 en 
 en 
 
 ce 
 
 Si5 
 
 10 
 
 5. 
 
 SEASAT SMMR 
 
 ASCENDING REVS (FILTERED) 
 
 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 
 
 XBT SST (C) 
 
 Figure 11-13. Comparison of SMMR and expendable bathythermographs (XBT's) 
 
 RGL 
 MAY 1980 
 
 15 
 
surface; and (3) all data which contain rain. Subject 
 to this filtering constraint, the 14 data points shown 
 have a bias of 0.7 K and an rms error about the 
 bias of 1.2 K. The significant aspect to this type 
 processing is that the unfiltered data set contains 
 59 data points for direct comparison between 
 SMMR and XBT's. The filtering process eliminates 
 76% of the data in this example. Filtering is 
 presently required because the SMMR sensor 
 characteristics and algorithms are not sufficiently 
 mature to permit corrections. 
 
 Color: The measurement of ocean color 
 can produce either quantitative data, such as an 
 
 estimate of chlorophyll, or non-quantitative data 
 wherein only ocean front information is derived. 
 In either case the region of interest must be cloud 
 free, and the best results are achieved when 
 atmospheric corrections are made (both Rayleigh 
 and aerosol corrections). Figure 11-14 is a scene 
 derived from the Nimbus-7 CZCS in the Gulf of 
 Mexico. Atmospheric corrections have been made. 
 Both ocean fronts and chlorophyll-a plus 
 phaeophytin-a data are contained in the image. 
 Sharp contrasts in the gray scale are regions of 
 optical ocean fronts, while the intensity of the 
 gray scale indicates pigment concentration (higher 
 concentrations are whiter). 
 
 ***** 
 
 Figure 11-14. Ocean fronts and chlorophyll-a and phaeophytin-a data for the Gulf of Mexico. 
 Light — high chlorophyll concentration; dark — low chlorophyll concentration. 
 
 1 
 
 GOES - Geostationary Operational Environmental 
 Satellite. 
 
 Effective July 31, 1980, NESS became the 
 National Earth Satellite Service. 
 
 "TIROS - Television and Infrared Operational 
 Satellite. 
 
 More details on these sensors and those on 
 Nimbus-7 are summarized in Appendix E. 
 
 16 
 
III. NOSS PROGRAM 
 
 1. 
 
 Introduction 
 
 The National Oceanic Satellite System 
 (NOSS) is planned as a joint effort by the National 
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
 of the Department of Commerce (DOC), the 
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
 (NASA) and the Department of the Navy for the 
 Department of Defense (DOD). The major 
 elements of NOSS trnagency organization are 
 composed of representatives from these agencies. 
 
 There are currently three levels of NOSS 
 activity represented by: (1) a Steering Committee 
 (Figure 111-1) for policy level review, direction and 
 interagency coordination; (2) a Program 
 Management Team (Figure IIM) for management 
 of the overall activities of the program, including 
 mission definition and monitoring performance, cost 
 and schedule, and serving as the primary interface 
 among the participating government agencies; and 
 (3) a NOSS Project (Figure III — 2) which is responsible 
 for all aspects of the system acquisition and day- 
 to-day implementation of NOSS, including the A- 
 109 Alternate Concept Studies. 
 
 Table 111-1 is the Major Milestone Schedule. 
 For the trt-agency segment of this proposed 
 program, the Phase I Design Study Contracts were 
 awarded in August, 1980. The Phase II Award, 
 which is the fabrication and implementation of the 
 system, will be granted subsequently in late 1981. 
 The implementation contract will eventually lead 
 to the launch of the first NOSS spacecraft 
 approximately in mid-1986. 
 
 NOSS will be jointly funded and managed 
 by the three agencies. The principal objective of 
 NOSS is: 
 
 To provide a time-limited operational 
 demonstration of global sea surface 
 observational capability based on 
 remote sensing from space. 
 
 The goal of NOSS includes the feasibility and value 
 of providing from polar-orbiting spacecraft, in near- 
 real time and under varying weather conditions, 
 continuous observations over the ocean surface. 
 These observations include winds, surface water 
 temperature, waveheight, sea ice, chlorophyll 
 
 concentration, ocean surface topography and 
 atmospheric water vapor. Previous NASA research 
 and development spacecraft, such as SKYLAR, 
 GEOS-3, Seasat and Nimbus-7 (as outlined in 
 Chapter II), have shown that satellite observations 
 can play an important role both operationally and 
 as a research tool in measuring these geophysical 
 quantities on a global basis. The planned duration 
 of the joint operational demonstration is five years. 
 
 NOSS data, due to its coverage and 
 timeliness, should improve the efficiency, safety 
 and economy of: ship operations, transportation, 
 off-shore oil and gas exploration and drilling, 
 platform operations, marine construction, 
 commercial fishing, ice monitoring, and marine 
 search and rescue operations. NOSS also is 
 expected to be especially useful in improving 
 NOAA's global weather forecasting services and to 
 benefit the National Climate Program. 
 
 2. NOAA Responsibilities 
 
 DOC/NOAA will participate in the NOSS 
 program as a primary user and specifically will 
 address the operational support of the civil marine 
 community, including government and non- 
 government needs for oceanic data. NOAA will 
 participate with NASA in the coordination of the 
 civil research requirements for NOSS. In both 
 areas of participation, NOAA will be committed 
 to the specification, development, validation and 
 operation of NOSS. Additionally, NOAA will 
 provide management and operational functions and 
 facilities to the NOSS tri-agency data archive. 
 
 3. NASA Responsibilities 
 
 NASA will participate in the NOSS program 
 as the system acquisition and development agency 
 and specifically will address the development of 
 new and advanced technology and of operational 
 instrument, software and spacecraft systems. NASA 
 will also address the requirements of the civil 
 oceanic research community and the interface with 
 the academic institutions and appropriate research 
 advisory bodies (including the National Academy of 
 Sciences), and will coordinate these requirements 
 with NOAA and Navy. To fulfill this obligation, 
 
 17 
 
NOSS Organization 
 
 Program Steering Committee 
 
 NASA — Dr. A. Calio 
 
 DOC/NOAA — D. Johnson 
 
 DOD — RADM. R. Williams 
 
 Program Management Team 
 
 NASA Chairman 
 Program Manager 
 Dep. Prog. Mgr. DOC/NOAA 
 Dep. Prog. Mgr. DOD 
 Project Mgr. 
 
 — Dr. L. R. Greenwood 
 
 — D. Broome 
 
 — J. Hussey 
 
 — Capt. H. Nicholson 
 
 — G. Branchflower 
 
 Figure III — 1 . 
 
 
 Table III— 1 . 
 
 a YEARS 
 
 
 iitspoNsatiiv NATIONAL OCEANIC SATELLITE SYSTEM (NOSS) -o- (1 
 
 ap.i mmm KtfMFNf V / RI ATIIS AAOF 
 
 
 N ^,_ S MlliKMlUI^ 
 
 
 M.FS10NFS "° '•" '"' "" "" '" 5 ,9 « 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 — TRI-AGENCY— 'j 
 
 ? 
 
 Receive A-109 Proposals v // 
 
 3 
 
 A- 109 Phase 1 Study Award y V\ 
 
 4 
 
 Complete Phase 1 Studies '_ '.11 llllV 1 / 
 
 5 
 
 Receive Phase II Proposals ; / / 
 
 6 
 
 A-109 Phase II Award y j 
 
 1 
 
 Ground Segment Installation \\ \t 
 
 fl 
 
 Launch First NOSS Spacecralt 1 J 
 
 9 
 
 t 
 
 10 
 
 (1 
 
 1 i 
 
 — NOAA-UNIQUE — Y\ 
 
 12 
 
 Issue NO AA Unique RFP y [)) 
 
 i J 
 
 Concept De»lgn(Phase l)Award y 11 
 
 14 
 
 Complete Phase 1 Studies 7 n y (^ 
 
 lb 
 
 Receive Phase II Proposals & )] 
 
 lf> 
 
 Implementation Phase II Award J ( 
 
 1} 
 
 NOAA-Unique Installation \\ J 
 
 Ifl 
 
 /) 
 
 10 
 
 / 
 
 20 
 
 
 MOrES 
 
 -J»S« I.HIM l304hUA1IMf 
 
 18 
 
ji 
 
 < 
 
 Si 
 
 z z 
 
 II 
 
 * I I 
 
 < ►■ H" 
 
 z2<S 
 
 Z (A <A 
 
 y oo 
 
 J» S X 
 
 - a. a. 
 
 S u 6 
 
 100 
 
 I tf» yj 
 ». < < 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 N 
 
 Z 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 cr 
 
 o 
 
 h- 
 o 
 
 111 
 
 o 
 
 a. 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 o < o 
 
 < 
 
 < o q 
 fll 
 
 ?ll 
 
 ~ £ <£ 
 
 xad 
 3 » ♦ 
 a. 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V. uj 
 
 (A 
 
 < 
 (A 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 <A 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 i 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 i 
 
 U) 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 (A 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ji 
 
 2 
 a/ 
 
 *A 
 
 
 
 (A 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 (A 
 
 <A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 (A 
 
 Z 
 
 
 < 
 Z 
 
 
 
 > 
 <A 
 
 1 
 
 e 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 * 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a. 
 O 
 (A 
 
 
 
 J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 CM 
 
 0) 
 LL 
 
 19 
 
NASA will be the lead agency in the technical 
 specification, development, procurement, tests, 
 launch, and prevalidation operation of NOSS and 
 its sensor payloads. 
 
 4. Navy Responsibilities 
 
 DOD/Navy participation in NOSS is similar 
 to that of NOAA but addresses oceanic support 
 to all national defense forces. 
 
 including four "higher heritage" instruments on the 
 NOSS spacecraft. The philosophy guiding this 
 higher heritage implementation by NOSS is to 
 utilize Seasat and Nimbus-7 sensor designs with 
 modifications, and to base the initial versions of 
 operational algorithms and expectations for accuracy 
 and precision of measurement on results of Seasat 
 and Nimbus-7 experiments. 
 
 The NOSS Sensor Payload includes the 
 following basic instruments: 
 
 5. Tri-Agency Program 
 
 NOSS will consist of two major parts, the 
 flight segment and the ground segment as illustrated 
 in Figure III — 3. The flight segment will be launched 
 by the space shuttle, and other supporting propulsion 
 systems, to an operating altitude of 600-900 km. 
 This segment includes a spacecraft "bus" and a 
 specific instrument complement. The spacecraft 
 "bus" will provide power, altitude and thermal 
 control, communications, command control, data 
 handling, and the necessary propulsion capability to 
 attain mission orbit from the lower shuttle orbit 
 and then return, if required. The instrument 
 complement is discussed subsequently. 
 
 The tri-agency ground segment is a 
 combination of systems which, in conjunction with 
 the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System 
 (TDRSS) and a domestic communication satellite 
 service, will provide the in-orbit operation, ground 
 data processing and distribution functions for the 
 NOSS mission. This segment includes a Primary 
 Processing Facility, the satellite and system control 
 facilities, an archiving facility, and the interfaces 
 with the primary user (NOAA and Navy) processing 
 centers. Table 111—2 indicates the major functional 
 ground components for the tri-agency NOSS end- 
 to-end system. 
 
 A set of oceanic data requirements 
 developed by NOAA, Navy and NASA (Table III- 
 3) has been used as a goal for the NOSS 
 measurements of the marine environment. These 
 geophysical requirements define the maximum 
 expectations that might realistically be achieved 
 by an operational satellite system. The NOSS 
 program is responding to these requirements by 
 
 o Large Antenna Multichannel 
 
 Microwave Radiometer (LAMMR); 
 
 o Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS); 
 
 o Altimeter; and 
 
 o Scatterometer. 
 
 The Large Antenna Multichannel Microwave 
 Radiometer (LAMMR) currently under development 
 is a much larger version (4-meter diameter antenna) 
 of the Scanning Multichannel Microwave 
 Radiometer (SMMR) flown on both Seasat and 
 Nimbus-7. Its primary usage is to monitor sea 
 surface temperature, surface wind speed, and sea 
 ice, and to provide atmospheric corrections for the 
 altimeter and scatterometer instruments. 
 
 The Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) is 
 the same as that flown on Nimbus-7, except for 
 the addition of three channels. Primary usage is 
 to monitor chlorophyll concentration and the diffuse 
 attenuation coefficient (turbidity). The CZCS 
 contains a single therm aMnfrared channel for sea 
 surface temperature measurement. 
 
 The Altimeter is essentially the same 
 instrument flown on Seasat, except that two are 
 being flown on NOSS for redundancy in order to 
 extend the operational life requirements of the 
 system. Primary usage is to monitor ocean waves, 
 ocean surface topography, and ice sheet height and 
 boundaries. 
 
 The Scatterometer is an improved version 
 of the Seasat Scatterometer System (SASS). The 
 NOSS version will have six antennas instead of 
 four and will also have redundant electronics. 
 
 20 
 
OOMSAT 
 
 TORSS 
 
 TO MILITARY USERS ^*- 
 
 TO CIVILIAN USERS 
 
 NASA NO 
 
 WHITE SANDS ™uoo 
 
 DOO/NAVY RECEIVING SITE * PRIMARY PROCESSING FACILITY 
 
 USER PROCESSING CENTER DOC/NOAA 
 
 (MONTEREY) USER PROCESSING CENTER 
 
 (SUITLAND) 
 
 * 
 Potentially to be co-located 
 
 Figure 1 1 1-3. NOSS End-To-End System 
 
 Table 111-2. 
 
 MAJOR FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS OF 
 TRI-AGENCY NOSS 
 
 • NATIONAL OCEANIC SATELLITE— sun-synchronous earth-orbiting 
 spacecraft consisting of a complement of four instruments to measure 
 oceanographic parameters. 
 
 • PRIMARY PROCESSING FACILITY (PPF)— responsible for acquiring and 
 processing raw spacecraft instrument data into calibrated and earth located 
 geophysical data for the primary users (NOAA and OOD/Navy) 
 
 • SYSTEM CONTROL CENTER (SCC)— nerve center for all NOSS operations. 
 Responsive to management directives of NOAA and OOD/Navy. 
 
 • SPACECRAFT OPERATIONS CONTROL CENTER (SOCC)— responsible for 
 the continuous monitoring and control of the satellite to ensure the health 
 and safety of the spacecraft. 
 
 • DOMSAT COMMUNICATIONS— provides for transmission of NOSS data 
 products from PPF and primary user processing centers. 
 
 • DATA ARCHIVE— provides for archive of all PPF products. 
 
 21 
 
Table 111 — 3- 
 
 National Oceanic Satellite System 
 
 Goals for Operational Geophysical Measurements 
 
 Parameter 
 
 Accuracy 
 
 Resolution 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Delay 
 
 Wind 
 
 
 
 Speed 
 
 2m/s 
 
 25km 
 
 12h 
 
 3h 
 
 Direction 
 
 10deg 
 
 25km 
 
 12h 
 
 3h 
 
 Sea Surface Temperature 
 
 
 
 
 
 Global 
 
 1.0 °C 
 
 25km 
 
 3 days 
 
 12h 
 
 Local 
 
 0.5 °C 
 
 10km 
 
 1 day 
 
 12h 
 
 Waves (Sea State) 
 
 
 
 
 
 Significant Wave Height 
 
 0.3m 
 
 25km 
 
 12h 
 
 3h 
 
 Direction 
 
 10deg 
 
 25km 
 
 12h 
 
 3h 
 
 Ice 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cover 
 
 15% 
 
 20km 
 
 3 days 
 
 12h 
 
 Thickness 
 
 2m 
 
 50km 
 
 3 days 
 
 12h 
 
 Age 
 
 New, 1st Yr, Multi-Yr 20km 
 
 3 days 
 
 12h 
 
 Sheet Height 
 
 0.5m Change 
 
 10km 
 
 1 year 
 
 30 days 
 
 Water Mass Definition 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chlorophyll 
 
 Within Factor of 2 
 
 0.4km 
 
 2 days 
 
 8h 
 
 Turbidity 
 
 Lo, Med, Hi 
 
 0.4km 
 
 1 day 
 
 10h 
 
 Horizontal Surface Currents 
 
 
 
 
 
 Speed 
 
 5cm/s 
 
 20km 
 
 1 day 
 
 1 day 
 
 Direction 
 
 10deg 
 
 20km 
 
 1 day 
 
 1 day 
 
 Table III-4. 
 
 NOSS SENSOR CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 Sensor 
 
 No. of 
 Channels 
 
 Data Rale 
 
 Resolution 
 
 Swath Width 
 
 Comments 
 
 LAMMR 
 
 7 Frequencies: 
 4.3,5.1,6.6, 
 10.65,18.7.21.3, 
 36.5 GHz 
 
 60 kbps 
 
 25 km for SST 
 9 km for Ice 
 
 1350km 
 
 Passive Sensor 
 4m Oflset Parabolic 
 Antenna 
 
 CZCS 
 
 9 wavelengths 
 110. 190. 560.590- 
 650.685,765, 
 867 nm. 11.5 urn 
 
 950 kbps 
 (25% duty 
 cycle) 
 
 825m 
 
 1500km 
 
 7 Visible, 1 Near IR 
 and 1 Far IR Channels 
 
 Allimeler 
 
 13.5GHz 
 
 8.5 kbps 
 
 < (0km 
 
 50km 
 
 Active Radar (2 Units 
 per Spacecralt 
 1m Antenna) 
 
 Scatlerometer 
 
 14.6GHz 
 
 20 kbps 
 
 50km Over 
 Primary 
 Swath ol 
 500km 
 
 1200km 
 
 Active Radar 
 (6 Antennas) 
 
 22 
 
Primary usage is to monitor surface wind velocity 
 (speed and direction) over the oceans. 
 
 A summary of the general characteristics 
 of NOSS sensors is given in Table III — 4 with more 
 detail in Appendix F. These instruments will 
 provide data converted to geophysical quantities, 
 time-indexed, earth-Jocated and provided in a 
 convenient format to the primary user centers of 
 NO A A and Navy. The primary users will further 
 process and distribute oceanic products derived from 
 the NOSS data to their respective end users on 
 a routine, timely basis. In addition, the basic 
 sensor data (LeveM, discussed subsequently) will 
 also be made available by NOAA to the civil user 
 community as required. 
 
 6. NOAA Oceanic Data System 
 
 NOAA will represent the civil user sectors, 
 both public and private, for operational applications 
 of NOSS. The NOAA Oceanic Data System 
 (NODS), the portion of the NOSS system that will 
 receive data from the tri-agency Primary Processing 
 Facility, performs additional processing on these 
 data and distributes the data to the civilian user 
 community. A team of technical experts from 
 various NOAA elements has been established to 
 work on the design and implementation of the 
 NODS in support of those NOSS responsibilities 
 solely delegated to NOAA. The milestone schedule 
 for this activity also is shown in Table IH-1. The 
 installation of this data processing and dissemination 
 system is planned for 1985. 
 
 The most important function of the NOAA 
 Oceanic Data System is the management and 
 handling of data. The system must receive Levels- 
 I and -II data from the tri-agency Primary 
 Processing Facility and send the data to the 
 appropriate NOAA systems which process them to 
 Levels-Ill and -IV. Table III— 5 describes the various 
 data levels. It should be noted that other satellite 
 and conventional data, in addition to the NOSS 
 data, will be assimilated in Levels-Ill and -IV. 
 LeveWII data will consist of analyzed products, 
 such as contoured sea surface temperature charts, 
 and LeveWV data will consist of forecasts. 
 
 NOAA is also responsible for distributing 
 
 NOSS near-real time data to the end users of the 
 civilian community. The two general classes of 
 distribution systems that may be utilized are first, 
 the distribution to standard user terminals, and 
 second, the distribution to other computer 
 installations. The distribution of data to NOSS 
 user terminals may be via standard dial-up or 
 permanently connected commercial 
 telecommunications services. The design of the 
 first type of distribution system will be tailored to 
 support image and graphic terminals. The second 
 type of data distribution will be tailored to support 
 the efficient transfer of data between NOAA and 
 end-user computer installations. 
 
 NCAA's EDIS will provide the worldwide 
 user community with non-real time (retrospective) 
 NOSS data reproduction and dissemination services. 
 Earth-located, calibrated, and time-tagged sensor 
 data (LeveW) and sensor-measured quantities 
 converted to geophysical units (LeveWI) will be 
 provided from the NOAA/EDIS managed tri-agency 
 archive. Sensor-measured quantities, processed into 
 analyzed geophysical fields (LeveWII), and possibly 
 forecast type products (LeveWV) processed by the 
 NOAA or Navy systems and provided to the EDIS 
 archive, will also be available along with a catalog 
 of all archived products. 
 
 Users may: 
 
 o Access and browse the NOAA/EDIS 
 
 catalog directly via computer 
 terminal, or indirectly by letter or 
 telephone; 
 
 o Place requests for data by computer 
 
 terminal, letter or phone; 
 
 o Obtain tailored data products 
 
 extracted from original data; 
 
 o Specify data type, sensor or 
 
 parameter at a given location or area 
 for a specific time and receive an 
 extract based on these conditions; 
 
 o Receive data in the form of computer 
 
 compatible tape, printed hard copy, 
 imagery or possibly through a 
 computer terminal; 
 
 23 
 
Obtain statistical summaries 
 computed in real time from Levels- 
 I and -II archived data consisting 
 possibly of means, extremes, variances 
 or histograms on a particular grid 
 spacing; and 
 
 Obtain information on the algorithms 
 used to produce the various levels of 
 
 products to permit reconstruction 
 using the LeveW data. 
 
 NOAA/EDIS is flexible concerning these services 
 and products. Ideas and comments are welcome 
 so that other services or products of benefit to 
 the user community may be considered. These 
 comments should be submitted to the same address 
 cited in Appendix B. 
 
 Table III— 5- 
 
 NOSS DATA TYPES 
 
 A. To be processed by Tri-Agency PPF: 
 
 Level I: Sensor data output— earth located, time tagged In engineering units. 
 
 Level II: Geophysical data output— earth located, time tagged in geophysical 
 units. 
 
 B. To be processed by Primary User Centers: 
 
 Level III: Assimilated and mapped geophysical data sets— Includes contouring, 
 spatial and temporal averaging, etc. Other satellite and conventional 
 data will be used. 
 
 Level IV: Outputs from forecast models and other special processing 
 
 "Higher heritage" instruments imply sensors that 
 have had research to demonstrate the concept. 
 Appendix F summarizes the characteristics of 
 the NOSS baseline sensors. 
 
 24 
 
IV. REVIEW OF CONFERENCES 
 
 1. 
 
 Structure of Conferences 
 
 The objectives of the five NOSS Conferences 
 were stated in the Introduction. These Conferences 
 were held at the following locations and times: 
 
 Seattle, Washington May 19 
 
 La Jolla, California May 22 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts May 28 
 
 Key Biscayne, Florida June 3 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi June 5 
 
 At each location, a NOAA component served as 
 host or co-host of the conference with the National 
 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regional centers 
 serving all five conferences. In Seattle the 
 conference was co-hosted by the Pacific Marine 
 Environmental Laboratory, and in Key Biscayne by 
 the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological 
 Laboratory. 
 
 The format at each Conference was the 
 same, with the morning sessions devoted to 
 presentations by NOAA, outlining the material 
 presented in Chapters II and III of this report, and 
 with the afternoon sessions focused on requirements 
 of the potential users of NOSS data and derived 
 products. The agenda for a typical conference 
 was: 
 
 Agenda 
 
 Morning 
 
 Welcoming Address 
 
 NOAA's New Space Mission 
 
 NOAA's Existing Satellite Marine 
 Products 
 
 Seasat and Nimbus-7 Experience 
 NOSS Program Overview 
 NOAA-Unique Interface 
 
 Afternoon 
 
 7 
 o Topical Group Meetings 
 
 Group 1. Operational Users 
 
 (Purpose and Scope, 
 Real Time Data 
 Interface, User Product 
 Requirements, 
 Requirements 
 Discussion) 
 
 Group 2. Research and 
 
 Development Users 
 (Purpose and Scope, 
 Sensor Description, 
 Opportunities for 
 Research, Requirements 
 Discussion) 
 
 o Review of Group Findings 
 
 o Continuing Interaction with NOSS 
 
 Program 
 
 o General Discussion 
 
 During the topical group meetings, which 
 began the afternoon sessions, the requirements 
 discussion centered around the Conference 
 Worksheet (See Appendix B). This Worksheet 
 formed the basis for individuals and organizations 
 to become more specific in terms of marine data 
 and information expectations from the NOSS 
 program. A summary statement was made by 
 the respective moderator of each topical group to 
 all Conference attendees. A discussion of 
 mechanisms for continuing interaction with the 
 NOSS Program and a general question and answer 
 period concluded each Conference. 
 
 Worksheets submitted to NOAA by June 
 23, 1980, form the basis for the analyses. These 
 analyses, combined with the highlights of the topical 
 group meetings, make up the general findings and 
 concerns presented at the close of this chapter. 
 
 25 
 
2. Participation 
 
 A broad spectrum of marine data and 
 information users and managers participated in the 
 Conferences. These participants, as well as the 
 program presenters, are listed in Appendix A. 
 Approximately 430 persons registered at one or 
 more of the Conferences, in which 118 or 33% 
 were from commercial (non-profit or private) 
 industry (Table PV-1); 70 or 19% from academic 
 institutions (Table IV-2); and 177 or 48% from 
 government agencies (Federal, state, local and 
 foreign as shown in Table IV-3). An analysis of 
 these participants reveals that: 
 
 40 attendees or 11% were in Seattle; 
 
 85 attendees or 23% were in La Jolla; 
 
 73 attendees or 20% were in Woods Hole; 
 
 35 attendees or 10% were in Key Biscayne; 
 and 
 
 132 attendees or 36% were in Bay St. Louis. 
 
 NOAA personnel represented 29% of the 
 government attendees, or 15% of all participants. 
 
 3. Highlights of Topical Groups 
 
 Introduction 
 
 The afternoon session of each Conference 
 focused on requirements of the potential users of 
 NOSS data and derived products. In order to 
 facilitate the discussion, the users were divided into 
 two topical groups, operational users and research 
 and development (R&D) users. The operational 
 users group was concerned with the near-real time 
 data interface and user product requirements, 
 whereas the R&D users group concentrated on 
 sensor description, opportunities for research and 
 retrospective (non-real time) data services. This 
 placement of retrospective considerations with the 
 R&D section of the Conference was for 
 convenience in maintaining only two groups. It was 
 not intended to imply uses of retrospective data 
 are limited to the R&D community. Both groups 
 used the Conference Worksheets as a basis for 
 
 questions and dialogue concerning marine data and 
 information expectations from the NOSS program. 
 Following the group sessions, the respective 
 moderator of each topical group presented a 
 summary statement of his/her group's discussion to 
 all Conference attendees. Table IV-4 lists the 
 moderators of each group for all Conference sites. 
 The results of the operational and R&D topical 
 groups are discussed only in terms of themes 
 common to all groups. 
 
 Commonality of Dialogue 
 
 Each Conference attendee voiced and 
 listened to concerns, issues, needs and activities 
 with regard to the potential NOSS support to their 
 on-going operations or program requirements. 
 Currently, near-real time, synoptic, geophysical data 
 are limited in duration and availability to essentially 
 all marine users. These data limitations apply to 
 local, regional and global needs. Buoy, ship and 
 fixed platform data collection on a routine basis 
 remains the backbone of present-day data 
 collection, and is viewed by a vast majority of 
 users to be an inherent element in any marine 
 data system. 
 
 To summarize the topical group discussions, 
 and the subsequent presentation by each group 
 moderator, is a task that involves not only the 
 Conference discussions but also the viewpoint of 
 the Conference coordinator. Therefore, the reader 
 should recognize that this documentation is what 
 has been "heard" at these Conferences and, as 
 such, becomes a mechanism for continuing the 
 real purpose of these Conferences; i.e., to obtain 
 early involvement of potential NOSS users. Thus, 
 NOAA management solicits comments on this 
 report as a means of continuing dialogue with the 
 marine community. 
 
 While discussed in different terms and 
 formats, the following seven points were common 
 to all topical groups: 
 
 o Support for NOSS 
 
 o Credibility 
 
 o Validation 
 
 26 
 
Table IV-1 
 COMMERCIAL USER? 
 
 Louis C. Adamo, Inc. 
 
 Aerospace Corporation 
 
 Aerojet Electro Systems 
 
 Alden Electronics 
 
 American Institute of Aeronautics & 
 Astronautics 
 
 Ametek Straza 
 
 Analytic Sciences Corporation 
 
 ARINC Research Corporation 
 
 Battelle Columbus Laboratories 
 
 Bendex Corporation 
 
 Benthos, Inc. 
 
 Boeing Aerospace Company 
 
 Coastal Engineer, Inc. 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 Conoco, Inc. 
 
 Control Data 
 
 Crouse-Hinds Electro 
 
 Crowley Maritime Corporation 
 
 D.P. Associates 
 
 D£. Britt Associates, Inc. 
 
 Del Norte Technology, Inc. 
 
 Dames & Moore Consultants 
 
 E G £ G Environmental Consultants 
 
 Environmental Devices Corporation 
 
 Environmental Research Technology, Inc. 
 
 ESCA-Tech Corporation 
 
 General Electric 
 
 Geo-Atmospheric Corporation 
 
 Global Marine Development 
 
 Harbor Branch Foundation 
 
 HARRIS Corporation 
 
 Interocean Systems, Inc. 
 
 JoEllen Smith Memorial Hospital 
 
 Lockheed Missiles & Space Company 
 
 Lockheed Ocean Laboratory 
 
 Marine Electronics Service, Inc. 
 
 McDonnell Douglas 
 
 Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Japan 
 
 Nekton, Inc. 
 
 Oceanroutes, Inc. 
 
 Ocean Data Systems, Inc. 
 
 Optronics International 
 
 Peace Publications 
 
 RCA 
 
 Raytheon 
 
 Rockwell International 
 
 Sanders Associates 
 
 Satellite Business Systems 
 
 Science Applications, Inc. 
 
 SEA USE Council 
 
 Sippican Corporation 
 
 Stanford Research Institute 
 (SRI) International 
 
 System Development Corporation 
 
 T Systems, Inc. 
 
 TRW-Defense & Space Systems Group 
 
 Technology Development of California 
 
 Teledyne Systems 
 
 Texaco, Inc. 
 
 ZAND, Inc. 
 
 Table IV-2 
 ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS 
 
 Bedford Institute of Oceanography 
 
 Johns Hopkins University 
 
 Jackson State University 
 
 Louisiana State University 
 
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
 
 Mission Bay Aquatic Center 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 Southern Maine Vocational <& Technical 
 Institute 
 
 State University of New York at Oneonta 
 
 Texas A <S M University 
 
 U.S. Coast Guard Academy 
 
 US. Naval Academy 
 
 University of Alaska 
 
 University of California at Santa Barbara 
 
 University of Illinois 
 
 University of Massachusetts 
 
 University of Miami 
 
 University of Mississippi 
 
 University of New Hampshire 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 University of Southern California 
 
 University of Washington 
 
 Western Washington University 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
 
 27 
 
Table IV-3 
 
 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - 
 
 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 
 
 Office of the Administrator 
 
 Office of Public Affairs 
 
 Office of Fisheries 
 
 Office of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
 Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center 
 Southeast Fisheries Center 
 Northeast Fisheries Center 
 Southwest Fisheries Center 
 
 Office of Research and Development 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 NOAA Data Buoy Office 
 
 Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Services 
 
 Office of the Assistant Administrator for Oceanic 
 
 and Atmospheric Services 
 
 National Earth Satellite Service 
 
 National Weather Service 
 
 National Ocean Survey 
 
 Environmental Data and Information Service 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY - 
 
 Office of Naval Research 
 
 Naval Environmental Prediction Research Facility 
 
 Naval Oceanography Command 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office 
 
 Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity 
 
 Navel Ocean System Center 
 
 Naval Underwater Systems Center 
 
 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 
 
 NASA Headauarters 
 Earth Resources Laboratory 
 Goddard Space Flight Center 
 Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
 Pacific Missile Test Center 
 
 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION - 
 
 Region 1 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - 
 
 U5. Geological Survey 
 
 LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 
 
 FLORIDA - 
 
 Department of Natural Resources 
 
 Environmental Quality Control Board - Broward County 
 
 Sea Grant 
 
 MAINE - 
 
 Land Use Regulation Commission 
 MISSISSIPPI - 
 
 Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium 
 NEW JERSEY - 
 
 Marine Advisory Service 
 
 WASHINGTON - 
 
 Department of Natural Resources 
 Sea Grant 
 
 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 
 
 CANADA - 
 
 Atmospheric Environment Service 
 EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY 
 
 28 
 
o Communication 
 
 o Availability 
 
 o Commitment 
 
 o Training 
 
 A myriad of potential users made common points, 
 varying from the need for hemispheric information 
 on the state-of-the-sea to the local relay of medical 
 information on unfortunate seafarers who require 
 immediate transmission of vital signs. Each user 
 appears to view the satellite approach as a means 
 of augmenting and improving the always present 
 paucity in marine data from conventional sources. 
 The users, be they commercial, academic or 
 governmental, support the NOSS concept. It 
 remains as a continuing exercise for NOSS planners 
 to establish a common denominator of these users' 
 needs for data and information products and to 
 satisfy these requirements within the constraints of 
 available resources. 
 
 Support for NOSS: The participation of 
 users at these Conferences demonstrates their 
 interest and support for the NOSS concept. The 
 attendees sought information on the system and 
 discussed actively the general needs and formats 
 for data. However, specific recommendations and 
 requirements are difficult because of the very 
 limited familiarity of the majority of users with 
 satellite-derived wind, wave, ice, water mass 
 definition and circulation information. 
 
 Credibility: This is the most serious concern 
 expressed by users because many can not obtain 
 useful data from presently operating experimental 
 satellites in months, yet NOSS is indicating only 
 hours of delay. Credibility is also lacking because 
 satellite data are often not consistent in format 
 and quality. Indeed, the more outspoken discussants 
 expressed the view that the oceanic community 
 does not want to wait for NOSS to have the 
 improved NOAA data distribution system that is 
 planned to accompany the proposed tri-agency 
 NOSS Program. Such a system should have the 
 capacity to handle NOSS-derived data in 1986 but 
 would operate now to distribute, in a timely manner, 
 the buoy, ship and existing satellite data. This in- 
 place data distribution system, operating prior to 
 
 NOSS, would provide not only the debugging of 
 the ground operation, but also would permit training 
 and experience using limited existing data. 
 
 Validation: Users support and encourage the 
 planned confirmation of NOSS performance by the 
 NOSS Project. The commitment by the Project 
 to conduct major experiments involving comparative 
 data sets (surface truth from all other marine data 
 sources) during the early part of the NOSS 
 demonstration is regarded as essential to the 
 Program. However, the users, be they research 
 or operationally oriented, believe that the actual 
 NOSS validation is an exercise which includes the 
 evaluation of performance by the marine 
 community, not solely by the NOSS Project. As 
 such, users should be a major element in the 
 Project validation plan. Such a validation plan 
 would include selected specific users making use 
 of products representative of the marine community 
 served by NOSS. A point was made that the 
 success of NOSS will be judged best by those 
 whom NOSS will serve and not by those who 
 serve NOSS. 
 
 Communication: The Conference attendees 
 uniformly support the requirements for NOSS 
 products and data distribution as well as the initial 
 efforts put forth by NOAA to involve the marine 
 community. These Conferences are believed by 
 all to be a major mechanism for effective two- 
 way communication between NOSS planners and 
 users. NOSS planners are encouraged to continue 
 such Conferences, if resources are available. 
 
 Also included as an element of 
 communication is the need for potential NOSS 
 users to understand from other operational and 
 research users what is being accomplished now via 
 satellites and what can be accomplished in the 
 future using Seasat and Nimbus-7 as models. In 
 short, the brief overview of these activities at the 
 five Conferences may have whet the appetite but 
 did not satisfy the hunger for understanding the 
 capabilities and limitations of satellite-derived 
 oceanic data. 
 
 Availability: Data availability ranked next 
 to credibility as a major concern. Data availability 
 includes vessel-at-sea needs, protected 
 considerations, compatibility with other data sets 
 and specific sources for data. 
 
 29 
 
Full-resolution, vessel-at-sea geophysical data 
 sets that cover the proximity of the vessel operation 
 are required. (This has been interpreted as an area 
 of 1 to 3 days of vessel travel time, or local data 
 sets according to the local, regional and global 
 data scales.) NOSS, as the first operational 
 demonstration of synoptic marine data and 
 information, will not have the most rudimentary 
 form of data availability (direct transmission) found 
 on many previous operational environmental 
 satellites which supported the meteorological 
 community. In particular, the oceanic community 
 appears to be well aware of the early Automatic 
 Picture Transmission (APT) capability and feels that 
 the remote location of vessel-at-sea situations is a 
 stronger requirement than the land-based 
 meteorological requirement which is more readily 
 served by centralized facilities. 
 
 The users' concern with availability of data 
 does not imply that there is dissatisfaction with 
 the NOSS concept per se, but that the NOSS 
 planners have not gone far enough in planning for 
 the at-sea availability of the data. Users urge 
 that the vessel-at-sea requirement include the large 
 technical break-throughs occurring in the mini- 
 computer field as the most realistic approach for 
 designing this aspect of the system. A major 
 overhaul in vessel-at-sea reception is required if 
 NOSS is to be effective outside the improvement 
 anticipated in marine forecasts (LeveNV). Time- 
 and-time again, users reiterated the limits of 
 present-day surface communications systems for 
 ships. 
 
 The second concern on availability focuses 
 on protected data. Nearly all users understand 
 the need to deny data on a near-real time basis 
 in specific oceanic areas for national security 
 reasons. Users request that the criteria for data 
 denial be established and made known and strongly 
 urge that near-real time denied data be made 
 available retrospectively. 
 
 The third point of discussion concerning 
 availability centers on compatibility of NOSS data 
 with other forms of surface and satellite data. If, 
 for example, sea surface temperature (SST) derived 
 from other satellites is not geometrically corrected 
 along with similar corrections for NOSS data, then 
 direct comparisons will be difficult (if not impossible 
 
 for near-real time users). Formats and standards 
 need to be prepared for user review and comment 
 before being formalized for implementation. 
 
 The last concern about availability deals with 
 providing users with focused points of contact to 
 receive oceanic data. Presently users interface 
 with five different elements of NOAA (NWS, EDIS, 
 NOS, NMFS, and NESS), depending on data type 
 or source. Civil users anticipate that a major 
 success for the NOSS Program may not lie in 
 achieving the National Oceanic Satellite System 
 but in creating a national oceanic data system. 
 
 Commitment: An area for review and 
 agreement between NOSS and the users is the 
 five-year operational demonstration limit for NOSS. 
 Some users appear unwilling to invest in NOSS- 
 related user equipment, such as receivers and display 
 units, especially for vessel-at-sea situations, unless 
 a commitment is made that a NOSS compatible 
 capability will follow. 
 
 Training: Outside those research scientists 
 involved in oceanic remote sensing, few users feel 
 comfortable in defining how best to incorporate 
 NOSS-derived data and information into their 
 activities. Users express a need for more "hands- 
 on", day-to-day experience to permit training and 
 technique development before launch. 
 
 A Special R&D Topical Group Concern 
 
 The potential of the four operational sensors 
 on NOSS to improve basic knowledge of ocean 
 physical and biological dynamics remains as an 
 undefined NOSS Program area. To realize further 
 operational benefits from other possible NOSS 
 follow-on systems, an effective research and 
 development program must be undertaken. The 
 concern of the R&D groups does not focus on the 
 lack of such an R&D effort within the overall 
 NOSS activity, but on the basic problems of how 
 to assimilate, process and analyze large data sets 
 that the NOSS system will provide. No major 
 computer system within the United States has or 
 will have the capability to support NOSS R&D, 
 unless plans are made early to provide such a 
 facility. 
 
 30 
 
Oceanic remote sensing researchers indicate 
 that, to date, the majority of their efforts in 
 working with satellite data have been directed 
 toward doing computer investigations, not scientific 
 studies. Properly trained computer experts, in 
 conjunction with an appropriate computer facility, 
 would significantly improve productivity and results. 
 Toward this end, researchers request that 
 consideration be given to creating a national facility 
 with possible regional and local terminals to 
 augment both the NOSS operational sensor analyses 
 as well as the 25% R&D growth capabilities planned 
 for the system. Estimates of only 1% to 5% of 
 the total NOSS data set would be processed at 
 such a facility. 
 
 4. Worksheet Analyses and Results 
 
 The Conference Worksheets (Appendix B), 
 completed by 144 persons (as of June 23, 1980), 
 form the basis of the analyses presented in this 
 section. These Worksheets were submitted by 31 
 commercial (private or non-profit) company 
 representatives, 41 academic institution 
 representatives, and 71 government representatives 
 (including 8 state and 1 foreign). The summary 
 of the organizational types submitting Worksheets 
 is given in Table IV-5. Since a reasonable cross- 
 section of potential NOSS users submitted 
 Worksheets, it is believed that the findings and 
 concerns drawn from these analyses are valid. 
 
 The analyses are related directly to questions 
 3 through 11 and 13a of the Worksheet. (Summaries 
 of the individual responses to each question are 
 tabulated in Appendix B.) The presentations in 
 this Chapter have been normalized to the Worksheet 
 responses within the three groups of commerce, 
 academia and government, such that the sensitivity 
 of the responses to each question is not dominated 
 by the larger number of Worksheets submitted by 
 government-affiliated people. These initial 
 
 analyses have not included other alternative 
 combinations, such as a determination of responses 
 according to R&D, engineering, forecast & 
 prediction, and petroleum categories. Such analyses 
 may be useful at a future date, but the categories 
 of commerce, academia and government are 
 thought to be the most useful basis for initial 
 analyses. 
 
 Spatial and Temporal Resolutions Needs 
 (Question 3) 
 
 The NOSS Program goals for operational 
 geophysical measurements were delineated in Table 
 III — 3- These goals are being sought for the NOSS 
 LeveHI (geophysical) data products, but are not 
 necessarily those that will be achieved by the 
 system. For example, the temporal coverage 
 achievable by a single satellite system with an 
 orbital altitude of 700-900 km is not 12 hours, but 
 typically between 2 and 3 days, depending on the 
 swathwidth of the particular satellite sensor (See 
 Appendices D and F). 
 
 As a measure of the response of the NOSS 
 goals to marine data user needs, an analysis of 
 the wind, sea surface temperature (SST), wave, 
 ice, chlorophyll, turbidity and current requirements 
 is shown in Figure IV-la. The NOSS goals in Table 
 !1I— 3 are listed in order of decreasing priority (so 
 that, for example, wind data is needed with a 
 higher priority than sea ice data). This priority is 
 borne out by the Worksheet responses with some 
 exceptions. First, marine users in general have a 
 greater need for physical, rather than biological, 
 environmental data. This, in part, is due to the 
 representatives submitting Worksheets, but is 
 believed to be reflective of the overall marine 
 community. Second, needs for ocean current data 
 are essentially as great as needs for ocean wave 
 data, a data requirement indicative of both physical 
 and biological requirements. Third, data 
 requirements for ice have a significantly higher 
 percentage of commercial users (66%) than 
 government users (31%). This may be reflective 
 of offshore facilities design and transportation in 
 regions of sea ice, but this initial analysis does not 
 document such a difference. Fourth, water mass 
 definition was separated into its chlorophyll and 
 turbidity components (SST can also be used for 
 water mass definition) to determine if there is a 
 significant difference in requirements for these two 
 types of data (derived from ocean color 
 measurement). In general, marine users have the 
 least requirement for chlorophyll and turbidity data, 
 with nearly three times the requirement by 
 government representatives as commercial 
 representatives for chlorophyll data. This 
 requirement is believed to be caused by several 
 factors: Only government facilities have had access 
 
 31 
 
Table IV-4. TOPICAL CROUP MODERATORS 
 
 Seattle 
 
 La Jolla 
 
 Woods Hole 
 
 Key Biscay ne 
 
 Bay St. Louis 
 
 Operational 
 
 James E. Overland 
 PMEL 
 
 R. Michael Laurs 
 PMEL 
 
 Kenneth Sherman 
 NEFC 
 
 Andrew J. Kemmerer 
 SEFC 
 
 Andrew J. Kemmerer 
 SEFC 
 
 R&D 
 
 H. Michael Byrne 
 PMEL 
 
 John W. Sherman, III 
 NESS 
 
 Linda Kelly 
 GSA/ADTS 
 
 George Maul 
 AOML 
 
 John T. Brucks 
 SEFC 
 
 Table 
 
 IV-5. 
 
 TABULATION 
 RESPONSE TO 
 
 OF THE CONFERENCE WORKSHEET 
 ORGANIZATIONAL TYPE 
 
 
 
 
 (AS 
 
 OF 
 
 JUNE 
 
 23, 1980) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Commercia 
 
 
 
 Academic 
 
 
 Government 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 (41) 
 
 
 
 
 (32) 
 
 
 
 (71) 
 
 (144) 
 
 Government 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 71 
 
 R&D 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 50 
 
 Engineering 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 Forecast & Prediction 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 19 
 
 Petroleum 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 Other 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 51 
 
 Worksheet Response 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Individual 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 131 
 
 Agency 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 Consortium 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 Other 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 32 
 
to ocean color data from which chlorophyll 
 information is derived; other color applications for 
 determination of ocean fronts and other features 
 have not been quantitatively established; and the 
 interest of commercial fisheries may not be well 
 represented in the Worksheets. 
 
 The analysis, thus far, has dealt only with 
 user needs that are addressed by the NOSS 
 Program. Dealing only with the planned spatial 
 grid/spatial resolution and temporal resolution 
 (frequency of coverage) stated by the NOSS goals, 
 an estimate of actual NOSS capability to satisfy 
 user requirements is provided. Written comments 
 on the Worksheets revealed that the quality of 
 geophysical measurements was far less a 
 consideration than were grid/spatial and temporal 
 resolutions. 
 
 The results of the NOSS spatial and temporal 
 constraints are summarized for three categories of 
 users in Figures IV-1b, -1c and -1d. In these 
 figures the abscissa component labelled "need" is 
 the same as in Figure IV-1a where user needs are 
 compared. However, these remaining figures 
 delineate the ability of NOSS to meet the needs. 
 Thus, the spatial resolution/grid characteristics of 
 NOSS satisfy nearly all commercial users of wind 
 data (94%) but only 60% of the academic and 
 70% of the government data needs. 
 
 Judging of the constraints of temporal 
 resolution of NOSS is based on the actual frequency 
 of coverage cited in Table 111 — 3 of the goals (the 
 frequency in the goal table is for a two-satellite 
 system). Thus, in actuality, the user requirements 
 satisfied by NOSS will be less than those given in 
 these figures. With this limitation in mind, it is 
 readily apparent that the biggest constraint to all 
 users is the frequency of coverage of a satellite 
 system. This constraint is compounded further by 
 the results presented in Appendix D which show 
 that about 30 hours are required for 95% of global 
 coverage. It is noted that two exceptions to this 
 temporal constraint are sea surface temperature 
 and current requirements of the academic 
 community, wherein spatial limitations are more 
 limiting than frequency of coverage. 
 
 Often marine users have difficulty in trading 
 off near-synoptic, large-area coverage data with 
 
 synoptic temporal coverage at limited, discrete data 
 points as collected conventionally. This difficulty 
 is illustrated by present-day applications of satellite- 
 derived sea surface temperature, wherein 
 commercial users estimate that the spatial 
 limitations of NOSS will satisfy 70% of their 
 requirements, but with the temporal limitations, 
 only 21% will be satisfied (Figure IV-1b). This 
 contrasts with the academic users (Figure IV— 1 c) 
 who have played a major role in developing the 
 application of satellite-derived sea surface 
 temperatures. These academic users are more 
 comfortable with the temporal limitations (because 
 of prior knowledge and experience) than the spatial 
 constraint. However, this form of conclusion is 
 counter to that which might be drav/n from the 
 analysis presented in a following section entitled 
 "Prior Satellite Experience and Satellite Data 
 Needs." 
 
 Geophysical Data Delivery Requirements 
 (Question 4) 
 
 The delivery time for geophysical marine 
 data, after acquisition by the satellite, falls into 
 two specific categories. The majority of near-real 
 time users, whether commercial, academic or 
 government, want data within three hours as shown 
 in Figure IV-2a. For commercial users, this 
 
 requirement for three-hour delivery is five times 
 greater than any other category of delivery time. 
 
 The non-real time, or retrospective, data 
 users fall largely in the category of those willing 
 to wait four weeks (or longer) for data, as shown 
 in Figure PV-2b. This is believed to be a realistic 
 viewpoint by all users, tempered by how soon the 
 data might be screened and requested by both 
 users and archivists, delivery times, and preparation 
 for data applications by the users. 
 
 Area Coverage Requirements (Question 5) 
 
 An analysis was made of responses to the 
 basic categories of area coverage data scales 
 proposed in the Worksheet: 
 
 33 
 
< 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 in 
 
 s 
 a. 
 o 
 
 u 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 H 
 
 « 
 
 M 
 D 
 
 a 
 g 
 
 « 
 w 
 w 
 
 D 
 
 Em 
 O 
 
 E-i 
 
 W 
 
 u 
 
 100 
 90 - 
 80 - 
 70 
 60 
 50 ■ 
 40 
 30 - 
 20 • 
 10 - 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 <u 
 
 o 
 
 •H 
 
 B 
 
 u 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 <v 
 
 0) 
 
 >-• 
 
 g 
 
 T3 
 
 <u 
 
 R 
 
 CO 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 
 WIND 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 C 
 
 1-t 
 
 o 
 
 ID 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 g 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 tu 
 
 oi 
 
 £4 
 
 H 
 
 T3 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 SST 
 
 CO 
 
 
 c 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 cu 
 
 O 
 
 •H 
 
 h 
 
 H 
 
 b 
 
 c 
 
 cu 
 
 a) 
 
 M 
 
 g 
 
 -a 
 
 aj 
 
 g 
 
 n) 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 (_> 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 
 WAVES 
 
 
 fl 
 
 
 c 
 
 •H 
 
 cj 
 
 a; 
 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 g 
 
 u 
 
 s 
 
 2 
 
 cu 
 
 0) 
 
 M 
 
 p 
 
 "O 
 
 tu 
 
 g 
 
 to 
 
 > 
 
 () 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 CJ 
 
 ICE 
 
 to 
 
 
 e 
 
 ■rl 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 V 
 
 •H 
 
 R 
 
 u 
 
 e 
 
 C 
 
 01 
 
 u 
 
 £ 
 
 G 
 
 -o 
 
 0) 
 
 B 
 
 tO 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 <: 
 
 o 
 
 CHLOROPHYLL 
 
 to 
 
 
 c 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 o 
 
 ■rt 
 
 F. 
 
 U 
 
 R 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 a) 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 -a 
 
 01 
 
 R 
 
 to 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 tu 
 
 •H 
 
 fi 
 
 R 
 
 c 
 
 0) 
 
 M 
 
 ■a 
 
 IV 
 
 to 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 TURBIDITY* 
 
 CURRENTS 
 
 * Turbidity is defined to be the diffuse attenuation coefficient. 
 
 Figure IV-la. NORMALIZED COMPARISON OF COMMERCIAL, ACADEMIC AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 MARINE DATA NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE NOSS TRI-ACENCY PROGRAM 
 
 100 
 90 
 80f 
 70 
 60 
 50 
 40 
 30 
 20f 
 10 
 
 
 . ( 
 
 1 1 | 
 
 rH fO 
 
 to u 
 
 •H O 
 
 -a *-> o. 
 
 oi to e 
 
 o) a o) 
 
 z en H 
 
 WIND 
 
 ■a 
 
 01 
 01 
 
 z 
 
 to 
 
 •H 
 4J 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 SST 
 
 to 
 
 M 
 
 O 
 
 a. 
 S 
 
 01 
 H 
 
 XI 
 01 
 0) 
 
 z 
 
 to 
 a. 
 
 o 
 a 
 B 
 
 01 
 H 
 
 WAVES 
 
 oi 
 z 
 
 ICE 
 
 u 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 a 
 
 XI 
 
 B 
 
 a) 
 
 0) 
 
 01 
 
 H 
 
 Z 
 
 to 
 
 C/J 
 
 u 
 O 
 
 e 
 tu 
 
 CHLOROPHYLL 
 
 0J 
 OI 
 
 z 
 
 to 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 B 
 tu 
 H 
 
 to 
 M 
 O 
 
 a. 
 
 TURBIDITY 
 
 tu 
 
 01 
 
 z 
 
 to 6 
 a. oi 
 
 CO H 
 
 CURRENTS 
 
 Fiaure IV-1b. NORMALIZED NOSS DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL USERS 
 
 34 
 
< 
 
 EH 
 
 < 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 « 
 
 w 
 w 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 M 
 g 
 
 u 
 
 W 
 U 
 « 
 
 w 
 a, 
 
 100 
 90 
 80 
 70 
 60 
 50 r 
 40 
 30 
 20 
 101- 
 
 
 I, 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 nl 
 
 
 ttj 
 
 u 
 
 
 •H 
 
 
 
 •n 
 
 4-1 
 
 o. 
 
 01 
 
 n) 
 
 fci 
 
 <u 
 
 a. 
 
 01 
 
 z 
 
 Ul 
 
 H 
 
 0> 
 
 z 
 
 WIND 
 
 SST 
 
 nl 
 M 
 
 
 a 
 
 6 
 01 
 H 
 
 
 T—{ 
 
 m 
 
 
 eg 
 
 >- 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 -T) 
 
 4-1 
 
 CL 
 
 0) 
 
 n) 
 
 E 
 
 01 
 
 a 
 
 01 
 
 s. 
 
 (/) 
 
 H 
 
 
 WAVES 
 
 
 0> 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 a 
 B 
 
 01 
 
 H 
 
 T3 
 
 0) 
 01 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 a 
 E 
 
 01 
 
 ICE 
 
 CHLOROPHYLL 
 
 
 •r-1 
 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 4-1 
 
 a 
 
 01 
 
 d 
 
 E 
 
 Ol 
 
 O- 
 
 0) 
 
 z 
 
 m 
 
 H 
 
 TURBIDITY 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 4-1 
 
 O- 
 
 01 
 
 n 
 
 f= 
 
 01 
 
 c 
 
 0J 
 
 z 
 
 tn 
 
 I- 
 
 CURRENTS 
 
 Fiaure IV 1c. NORMALIZED NOSS DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR ACADEMIC USERS 
 
 < 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 D 
 O 
 H 
 OS 
 
 W 
 « 
 W 
 CO. 
 D 
 
 2 
 W 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 w 
 > 
 o 
 o 
 
 E-i 
 2 
 
 w 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 04 
 
 100 T 
 90 
 80 
 70 
 60 
 50 - 
 40 - 
 30 - 
 20 
 lOf 
 
 
 
 r-H 
 
 n! 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 .—1 
 
 to 
 
 
 F^ 
 
 to 
 
 
 r- 1 
 
 to 
 
 
 ^ o 
 
 
 ~-i to 
 
 
 n) 
 
 u 
 
 
 <0 
 
 u 
 
 
 to 
 
 M 
 
 
 to 
 
 Vj 
 
 
 to 
 
 ij 
 
 
 CO 4- 
 
 
 CO »- 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 
 •H 
 
 O 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 
 
 
 ■H C 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 •n 
 
 4J 
 
 & 
 
 ■a 
 
 4-1 
 
 a 
 
 -o 
 
 ■U 
 
 a 
 
 •a 
 
 4-1 
 
 a 
 
 T3 
 
 4-1 
 
 a. 
 
 T! 
 
 4-i a. 
 
 tj 
 
 4J a 
 
 OJ 
 
 to 
 
 E 
 
 Ol 
 
 to 
 
 S 
 
 Ol 
 
 to 
 
 B 
 
 01 
 
 CO 
 
 B 
 
 Ol 
 
 to 
 
 B 
 
 0) 
 
 to E 
 
 Ol 
 
 0! B 
 
 m 
 
 D. 
 
 Ol 
 
 Ol 
 
 a. 
 
 01 
 
 Ol 
 
 a 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 a 
 
 01 
 
 Ol 
 
 a. 
 
 0) 
 
 OJ 
 
 O- 01 
 
 01 
 
 a. oi 
 
 7. 
 
 LO 
 
 H 
 
 z 
 
 c/i 
 
 H 
 
 z 
 
 en 
 WAVES 
 
 H 
 
 z 
 
 t/5 
 
 H 
 
 Z en H 
 
 CHLOROPHYLL 
 
 Z en H 
 
 TURBIDITY 
 
 z 
 
 en (-■ 
 
 
 WIND 
 
 
 
 SST 
 
 
 
 ICE 
 
 
 CURRENTS 
 
 Figure IV- Id. NORMALIZED NOSS DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT USERS 
 
 35 
 
50 
 
 « 
 
 H 
 W 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 2 
 
 W 
 
 u 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 _1 
 
 :•: 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 cj 
 
 6 
 ■a 
 
 u 
 
 0) 
 
 > 
 o 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 O 
 CJ 
 
 S 
 
 n) 
 u 
 
 u 
 oi 
 > 
 o 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 cj 
 
 3 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 O 
 CJ 
 
 E 
 
 01 
 
 n) 
 
 CJ 
 
 CU 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 ►J 
 < 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 e 
 
 c 
 >-l 
 aj 
 > 
 o 
 o 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 O 
 CJ 
 
 e 
 oi 
 •a 
 ni 
 
 C 
 oi 
 
 % 
 u 
 oi 
 > 
 o 
 o 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 WITHIN 3 HRS. 
 
 WITHIN 6 HRS. 
 
 WITHIN 12 HRS. 
 
 WITHIN 24 HRS. 
 
 24 HRS. TO 1 WK. 
 
 OTHER 
 
 Figure IV-2a. DISTRIBUTION OF NEAR-REAL TIME DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS 
 
 CO 
 
 « 
 
 w 
 co 
 
 D 
 
 <C 
 E-i 
 <C 
 D 
 
 O 
 En 
 
 w 
 u 
 « 
 w 
 
 0< 
 
 40 
 
 30 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 Jj 
 
 co 
 
 
 c 
 
 •H 
 
 cj 
 
 01 
 
 O 
 
 •H 
 
 
 Vj 
 
 E 
 
 5 
 
 01 
 
 0) 
 
 i-i ij 
 
 E 
 
 -a 
 
 01 < 
 
 £ 
 
 ra 
 
 > H 
 
 o 
 
 CJ 
 
 O 
 
 CJ 
 
 «: 
 
 O H 
 
 1 
 
 TO 2 
 
 WEEKS 
 
 CO 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 
 O 
 
 ■H 
 
 
 
 Ij 
 
 E 
 
 H 
 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 c 
 
 kO 
 
 E 
 
 •o 
 
 0) 
 
 <! 
 
 E 
 
 CO 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 -J 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 CJ 
 
 < 
 
 CJ 
 
 H 
 
 2 TO 4 WEEKS 
 
 o 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 4-1 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 cj 
 
 01 
 
 
 •H 
 
 c 
 
 
 E 
 
 c 
 
 
 01 
 T3 
 
 u 
 
 0> 
 
 3 
 
 co 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 4 WEEKS OR LONGER 
 
 ■H 
 
 CJ 0) 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 •H E 
 
 
 u 
 
 E C 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 0> >-i 
 
 ►J 
 
 E 
 
 •a oi 
 
 < 
 
 £ 
 
 CO > 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 < CJ 
 
 H 
 
 
 OTHER 
 
 
 Figure IV-2b. DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL TIME DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS 
 
 36 
 
Local and coastal (linear dimensions of 100's of 
 
 kilometers) 
 
 Regional 
 
 Global 
 
 (linear dimensions of 1,000's 
 of kilometers) 
 
 (linear dimensions of 10,000's 
 of kilometers) 
 
 Further, the analysis also includes whether the 
 anticipated coverage (if less than global) is fixed 
 or varies with time. The results of this analysis 
 are presented in Figure IV-3. 
 
 There appear to be no dominant classes of 
 users, so data distribution must be flexible. A 
 point of interest in Figure IV-3 is that government 
 users have the least interest in global data sets 
 as compared to either commercial or academic 
 users. 
 
 Data Distribution and Communications (Question 6) 
 
 The previous discussions of near-real time 
 and retrospective data requirements, as well as the 
 typical scales for area coverage, influence the 
 capabilities and size of the data distribution system. 
 Inherent in the design of the NOSS data distribution 
 system is the manner in which communication is 
 established between the data source and the user; 
 such a communication link must be mutually 
 established. 
 
 Figure IV-4 is the analysis of the Worksheet 
 responses with regard to data communications. 
 Overall, there is no strong preference for any 
 particular type data system (all totals are between 
 31% and 53%). Commercial users indicate the 
 highest stated need for near-real time diaNn and 
 computer-to-computer data communications (61% 
 and 56%, respectively). Based on the total in 
 each category of communication, the (decreasing) 
 order of priorities is: Near-real time diaMn, near- 
 real time computer-to-computer, computer 
 compatible tapes (CCT's) via mail, photographic 
 products via mail, non-real time computer-to- 
 computer and non-real time dial-in. 
 
 Requirements for Engineering Data fLeveH) 
 (Question 7) 
 
 The following general definitions are used 
 by the NOSS Program to define data types (from 
 Table III— 5): 
 
 LeveH Calibrated, located and time- 
 
 tagged engineering units 
 
 LeveHI Located and time-tagged full 
 
 resolution geophysical data 
 
 Level-Ill Value-added geophysical data 
 
 analysis (grid, contours, etc.) 
 
 LeveHV Forecasts, Predictions, etc. 
 
 The designers of the NOSS data distribution system 
 anticipate that there will be similar requirements 
 for Levels-ll, -III and -IV data. However, the 
 potential need for LeveH data has not been 
 established. The Worksheet analysis (Figure IV-5) 
 reveals that the need for LeveH is similar to the 
 need for all forms of geophysical data, both in 
 terms of near-real time and retrospective 
 requirements, as well as the spatial and temporal 
 resolutions, data delivery times after acquisition, 
 and area coverage requirements. Twenty-five 
 percent of the academic users indicate requirements 
 for Level-I which differ in data delivery 
 characteristics from geophysical data requirements. 
 
 Continuity of Data (Question 8) 
 
 The satellite component of the NOSS 
 Program will be collecting oceanic data on a 
 continuous basis. The NOSS data processing facility 
 will be providing LeveHI products within three 
 hours after acquisition. Thus, there will be a 24- 
 hour flow of data from the NOSS activity. Many 
 facilities operate on an 8-hour day, 40-hour week 
 basis. If users want the data in near-real time, 
 it will potentially require modification to user 
 facilities/personnel to accommodate data use during 
 non-working hours. The Worksheet analysis of user 
 willingness to incorporate this aspect of NOSS into 
 their planning is shown in Figure IV-6. Less than 
 10% of the users will operate only during normal 
 working hours with regard to NOSS data. 
 
 37 
 
« 
 w 
 w 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 w 
 
 100 
 90 
 80 
 70 ■ 
 60 - 
 50 
 40 
 30 
 20 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 c 
 
 
 01 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 ■H CJ 
 
 at 
 
 
 •r( 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 
 (J -H 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 E 
 
 
 K E 
 
 C 
 
 
 M 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 
 0) 0) 
 
 u 
 
 ►J 
 
 HI 
 
 oi 
 
 H 
 
 l-J 
 
 e "0 
 
 0} 
 
 <! 
 
 H 
 
 T3 
 
 0) 
 
 < 
 
 E n 
 
 > 
 
 £h 
 
 E 
 
 n) 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o u 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 <_) <d 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 LOCAL AND COASTAL 
 
 
 REGIONAL 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 O 
 
 o> 
 
 
 cj 
 
 •H 
 
 E 
 
 
 IJ 
 
 E 
 
 B 
 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 u 
 
 >J 
 
 E 
 
 -a 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 to 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 <c 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 GLOBAL 
 
 ra 
 
 C 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o oi 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 
 U 
 
 •H E 
 
 
 o 
 
 •H 
 
 E 
 
 
 |J 
 
 E C 
 
 
 M 
 
 E 
 
 c 
 
 
 01 
 
 0) Vj 
 
 ►J 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 b 
 
 J 
 
 E 
 
 T3 0) 
 
 <c 
 
 E 
 
 -a 
 
 0) 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 ft) > 
 
 H 
 
 E 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 O O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 < o 
 
 H 
 
 <_> 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 
 VARIES 
 
 
 
 FIXED 
 
 
 Figure IV-3. ANALYSIS OF SCALES OF COVERAGE FOR MARINE DATA 
 
 « 
 w 
 w 
 
 D 
 
 IS 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 fc, 
 O 
 
 Eh 
 
 Z 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 100 
 90 
 80 
 70 
 6 - 
 50 
 40 r 
 30 
 20 
 10 
 
 
 I 
 
 iiLi 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 E 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 DIAL-IN 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 rfl 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 
 •H 
 
 u 
 
 01 
 
 
 •rl 
 
 R 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■H 
 
 § 
 
 
 R 
 
 C 
 
 
 u 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 
 01 
 
 M 
 
 1-1 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 IJ 
 
 .-1 
 
 ■n 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 T3 
 
 01 
 
 <s 
 
 nl 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 E 
 
 ctf 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 <! 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 DIAL-IN 
 
 COMPUTER 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 r: 
 
 
 tfl 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 01 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 
 •H 
 
 S 
 
 
 O 
 
 •H 
 
 B 
 
 
 E 
 
 c 
 
 
 M 
 
 K 
 
 c 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 Vj 
 
 l-l 
 
 ■T> 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 -a 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 m 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 E 
 
 n) 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 <j 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 <: 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 COMPUTER 
 
 TELECOPY/ 
 
 (NEAR-REAL) (NON-REAL) (NEAR-REAL) (NO N-REAL) WEFAX , etc . 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 01 
 
 C 
 0> 
 
 I 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 CCT's VIA 
 
 MAIL 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 s 
 
 oi 
 > 
 o 
 
 iJ 
 <! 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 PH OTOS 
 VIA MAIL 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 (J 
 
 01 
 
 
 •H 
 
 E 
 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 
 0) 
 
 l-l 
 
 .-J 
 
 ■n 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 cd 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 cj 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 OTHER/ 
 COMMENTS 
 
 Figure IV-4. ANALYSIS OF NOSS DATA DISTRIBUTION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNIQUES 
 
 38 
 
« 
 w 
 w 
 
 < 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 Eh 
 
 25 
 
 w 
 PJ 
 
 100 
 90 
 80 - 
 70 - 
 60 
 50 
 40 
 30 
 20 
 lOf 
 
 
 - is 
 
 ft 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 01 
 T3 
 
 C 
 
 01 
 
 I 
 
 P 
 
 VJ 
 0> 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 < 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 NEAR-REAL 
 
 TIME 
 
 nl 
 
 c 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 O 01 
 
 
 U 
 
 •H § 
 
 
 !-i 
 
 a S 
 
 
 01 
 
 01 1- 
 
 ,-J 
 
 
 T> 01 
 
 <* 
 
 § 
 
 to > 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 < o 
 
 H 
 
 
 NON-REAL 
 
 
 
 TIME 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 <U 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 •H 
 
 u 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 o 
 
 •h 
 
 B 
 
 
 U 
 
 -H 
 
 e 
 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 
 u 
 
 b 
 
 c 
 
 
 0) 
 
 01 
 
 u 
 
 -J 
 
 01 
 
 0) 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 
 
 -a 
 
 o> 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 -a 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 £ 
 
 n) 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 B 
 
 nj 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 CJ 
 
 H 
 
 
 ENGINEERING 
 
 ENGINEERING 
 
 DATA 
 
 SIMILAR 
 
 DAT^ 
 
 DIFFERENT 
 
 TO 
 
 GEOPHYSICAL 
 
 FROM 
 
 GEOPHYSICAL 
 
 Figure IV-5. ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DATA NEEDS AND 
 
 COMPARISON TO CEOPHYSICAL DATA REQUIREMENTS 
 
 w 
 as 
 w 
 to 
 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 O 
 
 2 
 
 W 
 
 u 
 
 « 
 w 
 
 100 
 90 
 80 
 70 
 60 
 50 
 40 
 30 
 20 
 10 
 
 
 1 1 a I 
 
 u 
 
 « 
 
 c 
 
 •H (J 
 
 OJ 
 
 O -H 
 
 e 
 
 ^ B 
 
 c 
 
 0> OJ 
 
 >-■ eJ 
 
 B "O 
 
 oi <: 
 
 B « 
 
 > H 
 
 o u 
 
 O O 
 
 u <S 
 
 O H 
 
 CONTINUOUSLY 
 
 AS AVAILABLE 
 
 n! 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 -rH 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 
 u 
 
 ■H 
 
 f= 
 
 
 u 
 
 6 
 
 c 
 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 u 
 
 >-j 
 
 B 
 
 -o 
 
 OJ 
 
 < 
 
 5 
 
 n) 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 INTERMITTENTLY 
 
 ON 
 
 TASK 
 
 BASIS 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 O 
 
 u < 
 
 u H 
 
 DURING 
 
 NORMAL 
 
 WORKING 
 
 HOURS 
 
 m 
 
 c 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 O 01 
 
 
 O 
 
 ■H S 
 
 
 >- 
 
 E C 
 
 
 0) 
 
 a) >-- 
 
 ,-J 
 
 p 
 
 t> 0) 
 
 < 
 
 p 
 
 n! > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 u o 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 < O 
 
 H 
 
 
 OTHER 
 
 
 Figure IV-6. CONTINUITY OF NEAR-REAL TIME DATA /ANALYSES NEED 
 
 39 
 
Combining and Merging of NOSS Data with Other 
 Data (Question 9) 
 
 The opportunity exists to combine NOSS 
 data with other data sources. For non-real time 
 data, it might be combined with other data sources 
 at LeveHI, and for near-real time data, it might 
 be combined with other analyses (Level-Ill) to 
 provide a merged data set. Such combining and 
 merging would tend to have a "self-validation" built 
 into the geophysical data. The analysis of user 
 needs to provide such combined and merged data 
 sets is shown in Figure IV-7. It is clear that the 
 NOSS data flow to the civilian community requires 
 combined data for retrospective users and both 
 NOSS-merged and NOSS-only data analyses available 
 on a near-real time basis. 
 
 Prior Satellite Experience and Satellite Data Needs 
 (Question 10) 
 
 Figure N-8 presents the summary analysis 
 of prior satellite experience by participants who 
 submitted Worksheets. This analysis shows that 
 the users typically have had prior experience with 
 such satellites as GOES, TIROS-N/NOAA, GEOS- 
 3, Seasat or Nimbus-7. The Worksheet format did 
 not seek clarification as to whether the general 
 experience was good or bad; however, an 
 overwhelming majority of users indicated that the 
 availability of these data is useful to their marine 
 needs. Considerably less enthusiastic was the 
 response with regard to potential simulations of 
 data to the NOSS formats wherein the users were 
 about equally divided on its usefulness or non- 
 usefulness. 
 
 Private Enterprise's NOSS Role (Question 12) 
 
 The number of comments made by 
 Worksheet respondents on the role of private 
 enterprise in providing information-extraction, value- 
 added services, as well as the responsibilities of 
 government in this area, are as follows: 
 
 User Group 
 Commerce 
 Academia 
 Government 
 
 Number of 
 Comments Made 
 
 28 (68%) 
 
 14 (44%) 
 
 16 (23%) 
 
 The analysis of these comments has not been 
 completed because of their diverse nature. It is 
 obvious that commercial and academic users are 
 more concerned with this subject than government 
 users. 
 
 Dialogue and Interface Considerations (Question 13) 
 
 A major concern of both the user community 
 and the NOSS Program is the establishment of a 
 mechanism for communication between the marine 
 community and NOAA, as well as the nature of 
 the interface that might be created with academia 
 and commerce. Figure IV-10 illustrates that users 
 most likely will accept any form of communication, 
 but have a preference for the use of on-going 
 publications and continuing the workshop/conference 
 mechanism such as this first series of NOSS 
 Conferences. 
 
 Awareness of Data Costs (Question 11) 
 
 Essentially all potential NOSS data users are 
 aware that they must bear part of the costs 
 associated with duplicating, reproducing or 
 transmitting the data, as shown in the analysis 
 presented in Figure IV-9. In general it appears 
 that as long as the NOSS data costs are consistent 
 with now existing user costs associated with other 
 satellite programs, such as the meteorological and 
 land programs, marine users regard the potential 
 NOSS data cost as reasonable. 
 
 The interface consideration between 
 academic and commercial users and NOSS resulted 
 in 46 comments which require further analysis (59% 
 and 68% from the academic and commercial users, 
 respectively, with only 28% from government users). 
 In general, the comments include: 
 
 o Recognition within NOAA that the 
 
 needed interface is larger than just 
 the NOSS Program or NOSS data; 
 
 40 
 

 100r 
 
 
 90 - 
 
 w 
 
 80 - 
 
 K 
 
 
 H 
 
 - 
 
 D 
 
 70 - 
 
 < 
 
 " 
 
 H 
 
 60 - 
 
 < 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 ti 
 
 50 - 
 
 O 
 
 - 
 
 H 
 
 40 - 
 
 2 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 u 
 
 30 - 
 
 w 
 
 - 
 
 P. 
 
 20 - 
 
 
 10 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 NON-REAL TIME DATA COMBINATION 
 
 : : \ 
 
 1_EL 
 
 Jj ill 
 
 NOSS DATA ANALYSES MERGED WITH OTHER ANALYSES 
 (NEAR-REAL TIME) ~1 
 
 JL 
 
 li 
 
 I 
 
 to 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 HI 
 
 
 c; 
 
 ■H 
 
 a 
 
 
 |j 
 
 H 
 
 c 
 
 
 0) 
 
 a) 
 
 l-l 
 
 1-1 
 
 g 
 
 Ti- 
 
 oi 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 nt 
 
 > 
 
 M 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 t_> 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 to 
 
 
 tt 
 
 
 rH 
 
 u 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■H 
 
 a 
 
 
 V4 
 
 R 
 
 c 
 
 
 cu 
 
 01 
 
 u 
 
 1-1 
 
 a 
 
 TJ 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 td 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 _> 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 V 
 
 01 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 
 •H 
 
 g 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■H 
 
 hi 
 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 
 l-l 
 
 b 
 
 d 
 
 
 01 
 
 1-1 
 
 ►4 
 
 0J 
 
 0) 
 
 1j 
 
 J 
 
 T3 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 e 
 
 T3 
 
 0) 
 
 < 
 
 en 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 c_> 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 c_> 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 cfl 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 u 
 
 0) 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 u 
 
 01 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 
 •H 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 •H 
 
 F. 
 
 
 (J 
 
 •H 
 
 a 
 
 
 (5 
 
 c 
 
 
 l-l 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 
 U 
 
 fc= 
 
 3 
 
 
 01 
 
 l-l 
 
 J 
 
 01 
 
 0) 
 
 1J 
 
 ►J 
 
 0) 
 
 01 
 
 M 
 
 l-l 
 
 ■o 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 T3 
 
 Ol 
 
 <! 
 
 a 
 
 T3 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 to 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 « 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 > 
 
 ! - 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 <C 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 t_> 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 COMBINED 
 
 NOT COMBINED NO PREFERENCE 
 
 NOSS DATA 
 ONLY 
 
 NOSS AND 
 OTHER DATA 
 
 BOTH 
 
 OTHER/ 
 COMMENT 
 
 Figure IV-7. ANALYSIS OF COMBINING OR MERGING NOSS DATA WITH OTHER DATA SOURCES 
 
 w 
 w 
 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 Eh 
 
 W 
 U 
 
 a 
 
 100t 
 90 - 
 80 
 70 ■ 
 60 - 
 50 - 
 40 - 
 30 
 20 
 10 
 
 
 NEED FOR OTHER SATELLITE DATA 
 FOR MARINE APPLICATIONS 
 
 EXPERIENCE WITH 
 SATELLITE DATA 
 
 S:l 
 
 USEFULNESS OF NOSS DATA 
 
 SIMULATIONS 
 
 J3_ 
 
 fl CI 
 
 PI 
 
 e 
 
 01 
 
 C 
 01 
 B 
 
 c 
 u 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 -a 
 cO 
 o 
 < 
 
 -J 
 < 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 I 
 o 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 e 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 EXPERIENCE NO EXPERIENCE 
 
 DATA 
 NEEDED 
 
 e 
 
 01 
 
 ■a 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 B 
 C 
 ki 
 
 cu 
 > 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 l-l 
 <: 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 DATA NOT 
 NEEDED 
 
 s 
 
 ai 
 -a 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 c 
 
 CU 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 l-l 
 cu 
 > 
 o 
 o 
 
 (J 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 OTHER/ 
 COMMENT 
 
 o 
 
 •J 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 USEFUL 
 
 e 
 cu 
 -a 
 co 
 o 
 <! 
 
 iJ 
 
 < 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 NOT USEFUL 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 01 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 cu 
 
 e 
 c 
 i-i 
 
 0) 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 OTHER/ 
 COMMENT 
 
 Figure IV-8. EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER SATELLITES AND RELATIONSHIP 
 TO MARINE DATA NEEDS AND NOSS PREPARATION 
 
 41 
 
AWARENESS OF DATA COSTS 
 
 w 
 
 X 
 
 w 
 w 
 
 D 
 
 < 
 Eh 
 < 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 U 
 U 
 
 « 
 
 U 
 0. 
 
 100 r 
 90 
 80 
 70 
 60f 
 50 
 40 
 30 
 20 
 10 
 
 
 S 
 
 REASONABLENESS OF POSSIBLE DATA COSTS 
 
 I ® B 1 j 1 1 
 
 _EL 
 
 i 1 1 
 
 JUlJ 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 (0 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 O 
 U 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 53 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 B 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 iH 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 nl 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 o 
 
 a) 
 
 
 •H 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 
 
 01 
 
 
 ■H 
 
 11 
 
 
 O 
 
 •iH 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 •H 
 
 a 
 
 
 f= 
 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 
 l-i 
 
 a 
 
 £ 
 
 
 fl) 
 
 M 
 
 5| 
 
 <u 
 
 01 
 
 p 
 
 ►J 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 si 
 
 T) 
 
 0) 
 
 s 
 
 T3 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 p 
 
 •o 
 
 01 
 
 tn 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 § 
 
 rt 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 nl 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 AWARE 
 
 NOT AWARE 
 
 COMMENT MADE 
 
 REASONABLE 
 
 UNREASONABLE 
 
 COMMENT MADE 
 
 Figure IV-9. ANALYSIS OF DATA COST CONSIDERATIONS 
 
 w 
 
 K 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 < 
 
 Eh 
 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 in 
 O 
 
 w 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 w 
 
 100 
 90 ■ 
 80 • 
 70 ■ 
 60 
 50 
 40f 
 30 
 20 
 10 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 01 
 
 •a 
 rt 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 B 
 3 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 (J 
 < 
 
 H 
 O 
 H 
 
 PUBLICATIONS 
 i.e. .QUARTERLY 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 01 
 
 -o 
 n) 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 I 
 
 u 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 WORKSHOPS/ 
 CONFERENCES 
 
 E 
 o) 
 T3 
 rt 
 
 c 
 01 
 E 
 C 
 tj 
 01 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 <: 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 PRESENTATIONS, 
 PROFESSIONAL/ 
 TRADE MEETINGS 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 •H 
 
 u 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 U 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 
 b 
 
 ,J 
 
 01 
 
 0) 
 
 M 
 
 l-l 
 
 
 01 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 
 •o 
 
 <u 
 
 <J 
 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 g 
 
 rt 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 <! 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 SPECIF IC 
 
 DISCIPLINE 
 
 GROUPS 
 
 OTHER 
 
 Fiqure IV-IO. ANALYSIS OF MECHANISMS FOR CONTINUING DIALOGUE 
 BETWEEN NOAA/NOSS AND USERS 
 
The advisory nature of the 
 commercial users' interface needs to 
 be at a management level comparable 
 to the marine R&D advisory activities 
 within NASA; and 
 
 The academic community feels it has 
 a comparable role to play in advising 
 NOAA/NOSS on R&D matters similar 
 to that of the commercial users for 
 applications, and recommends an 
 advisory group be considered. 
 
 Other Comments, Suggestions, and Issues 
 (Question 14) 
 
 This portion of the Worksheet resulted in a 
 wide range of responses which will be analyzed at 
 a later date. The number of responses are as 
 follows: 
 
 Number of 
 Comments Made 
 
 25 (61%) 
 
 18 (56%) 
 
 30 (42%) 
 
 User Group 
 Commerce 
 Academic 
 Government 
 
 5. Findings and Concerns 
 
 The Conference participants' marine data 
 needs are highly compatible with the geophysical 
 goals and priorities for the National Oceanic Satellite 
 System (NOSS). Differences appear to be based 
 on two fundamental elements, the requirements of 
 the biological and physical communities, and the 
 ability of NOSS to address and meet its goals. 
 
 The Conference Worksheet response was 
 high, with 144 Worksheets received by June 23, 
 1980. This represents about a 40% return by the 
 registered participants (or their organizations). The 
 initial analyses of these Worksheets, and the marine 
 data needs represented therein, were completed in 
 the previous section in terms of commercial, 
 academic and government users. These analyses 
 and the Workshop topical group discussions form 
 the basis for the findings and concerns. 
 
 It is emphasized that these findings and 
 concerns are based on the Conference results, and 
 are not necessarily the findings and concerns of 
 the tri-agency NOSS Program, NASA, NOAA, Navy 
 nor any other Federal agency. They are published 
 to document the Conference and further the 
 dialogue between civil marine data users and 
 NOAA, as the lead agency for the civil marine 
 community. 
 
 The findings and concerns are presented in 
 six categories: Data and Data Telemetry, 
 Processing and Training, Dialogue and 
 Communications Mechanisms, Validation, Support to 
 R&D and Other. 
 
 Data & Data Telemetry 
 
 General 
 
 High correlation exists between NOSS 
 data goals and priorities and civil 
 marine community needs. 
 
 Easy access to and retrievability of 
 data is paramount to NOSS data use. 
 
 Flexibility and compatibility to 
 combine and merge both data sets 
 and analyses are necessary (if not 
 done routinely by the NOAA Oceanic 
 Data System). 
 
 A high interest exists in currently 
 and potentially available marine 
 products, such that a NOAA marine 
 data distribution system should not 
 necessarily wait for the operational 
 demonstration satellite component of 
 NOSS. 
 
 There is a strong need for sea-going 
 vessels to receive full-resolution NOSS 
 products (winds, waves, ice . 
 temperature, chlorophyll and 
 currents). 
 
 There is concern about the possible 
 "dumping" of data from the archive 
 without alerting retrospective data 
 users. 
 
 43 
 
Specific 
 
 Two forms of concern exist on 
 protection of NOSS data: First is 
 the criteria and conditions by which 
 data will be denied; and second is 
 the subsequent availability of such 
 protected data on a retrospective 
 basis. 
 
 When spatial grid and spatial 
 resolution characteristics of NOSS are 
 evaluated by the users, there is a 
 slight reduction in the utility of NOSS 
 data. 
 
 When temporal 
 characteristics of 
 evaluated, there is a 
 NOSS data capability 
 further evaluation. 
 
 coverage 
 
 NOSS are 
 
 reduction in 
 
 that needs 
 
 Near-real time data should be 
 delivered to users within 3 hours after 
 acquisition. 
 
 Retrospective data, or non-real time 
 data, can have delivery times on the 
 order of 4 weeks to meet the 
 demands of most users. 
 
 The coverage areas for NOSS data 
 will be changed from time to time 
 for the majority of users. 
 
 There is no significant preference 
 among users for local, regional or 
 global data. 
 
 There is no preference for the type 
 data distribution system for 
 communication of data to users. 
 Needed are diaMn, computer-to- 
 computer, Wefax, photographic 
 products, etc. 
 
 near-real time data on a continuing 
 basis and will modify 
 facilities/personnel to accommodate 
 such data on an around-the-clock 
 basis. 
 
 o Users will want retrospective 
 
 geophysical data merged with other 
 forms of marine data. 
 
 o Users will want near-real time data 
 
 analyses available in both NOSS-only 
 and NOSS-merged configurations. 
 
 o A large percentage (70%) of marine 
 
 data users have had some form of 
 satellite data experience. 
 
 Processing and Training Center 
 
 o A central or regional data processing 
 
 facility is needed for pre-launch 
 training and for R&D post-launch use. 
 
 o Training of users with current satellite 
 
 data is desirable as a preamble to 
 NOSS preparation of the marine data 
 users. 
 
 o Audio-visual cassettes for specific 
 
 users of NOSS data should be 
 prepared for direct use at docks, etc., 
 by many end users. The Sea Grant 
 College Program might be the 
 appropriate vehicle for this form of 
 training. 
 
 Dialogue and Communications Mechanism 
 
 o A focused NOAA environmental 
 
 service for users is desired rather 
 than the individual services of NOAA's 
 Major Program Elements. NOSS 
 should not become yet another stand- 
 alone service. 
 
 Engineering data requirements appear 
 to be almost identical to the 
 geophysical data requirements. 
 
 Most users want to receive NOSS 
 
 Newsletters, bulletins, etc., are highly 
 useful at a periodical frequency 
 appropriate to NOSS developments 
 and changes. Such techniques for 
 correspondence should include a 
 
 44 
 
format to accommodate articles by 
 users, be they academic, commercial 
 or other government (non-NOAA) 
 NOSS participants. 
 
 Audio-visual cassettes for 
 communications of basic capabilities 
 would serve a large segment of users 
 who are unable to attend formally 
 structured meetings. 
 
 Publications and presentations in 
 professional literature and meetings 
 along with other special NOSS 
 conferences appear to be the two 
 better methods for a continuing 
 dialogue with the general marine 
 community. 
 
 Users in the commercial sector wish 
 to serve in a senior advisory capacity 
 to NOAA on NOSS matters, and the 
 R&D community also feels it has an 
 advisory role to both NASA and 
 NOAA. 
 
 Validation 
 
 Many users need a continuing 
 assessment throughout the life-time 
 of NOSS of the estimated accuracy 
 of the geophysical data. 
 
 Availability of Nimbus-7 CZCS and 
 SMMR data in conjunction with on- 
 going marine experiments would 
 significantly enhance the NOSS 
 statements on capabilities and validity 
 of satellite-derived data. 
 
 Major attention to intra-callibration 
 of comparative data sets (sea truth) 
 is needed as a part of the validation 
 program. 
 
 True validation of NOSS data, as an 
 end-to-end data system, can only be 
 achieved by end users and, as such, 
 specific representative users should be 
 included (and funded) as an inherent 
 portion of the validation effort. 
 
 Estimates on actual improvement of 
 marine weather forecast/prediction 
 would enhance the involvement and 
 support of a large segment of the 
 commercial sector. 
 
 Support to R&D 
 
 There is a major need to establish 
 support activities to permit the 
 science elements to do specific 
 investigations instead of computer 
 investigations within the tri-agency 
 NOSS Program. 
 
 A national-type facility for the 
 interactive processing of NOSS data 
 is a high priority requirement among 
 R&D users. 
 
 A concern exists for NASA to define 
 quickly the 25% R&D growth 
 opportunities for science within the 
 NOSS Program. Joint collaboration 
 betv/een NASA (as lead R&D agency) 
 and NOAA (long-term applications) 
 has been suggested. 
 
 R&D users would prefer a mechanism 
 by which to influence NOAA/NOSS 
 science activities and not depend 
 solely on NASA. 
 
 Other 
 
 Present-day transmissions to fishing 
 vessels on the U.S. west coast appear 
 to be ahead of those on the east 
 coast. 
 
 Tracking of marine mammals remains 
 a very important requirement for 
 specific governmental activities. 
 
 Many potential users feel a significant 
 limitation in defining their specific 
 NOSS data requirements in the 
 absence of any "hands-on" use of such 
 data. 
 
 Further questions and resulting 
 
 45 
 
answers on data and data 
 requirements will be possible as a 
 result of the first series of 
 Conferences since both NOSS planners 
 and NOSS users are more informed 
 on mutual problems and concerns. 
 
 Before the commercial sector (and 
 others) invest in the five-year 
 demonstration program, assurances 
 and commitments on capabilities and 
 products continuation after the initial 
 NOSS phase are required. 
 
 Now known as NOAA Oceanic Data System. 
 
 The Bay St. Louis Conference contained a third 
 topical group meeting for DoD/Navy NOSS 
 Planning, conducted by OPNAV, U.S. Navy. 
 
 Actually 432 persons registered, including 14 
 conference presenters and managers. Excluding 
 site chairs, presenters and moderators, 365 
 individuals participated. There were 30 "no- 
 shows". 
 
 It is not intended to imply that vessel-at-sea 
 data reception is necessarily a NOSS program 
 responsibility, only that it needs major 
 improvement via modern technology if NOSS is 
 to realize its full potential. 
 
 10 
 
 Thus, if 17 out of 31 private Worksheet 
 
 responses needed a specific data type, 
 then 55 % of this group required the data. If 
 17 out of the 71 government Worksheet 
 responses required these same data, then the 
 percentage is 24 %♦ 
 
 These percentages were determined by dividing 
 the percentage of users satisfied by the spatial 
 characteristics for a given parameter, i.e., wind, 
 by the percentage needing that type of data. 
 Thus, for commercial wind users, 59 t 63 x 
 100% = 94%. 
 
 12 
 
 The "total" column shown in this and the 
 remaining analysis figures is the fraction of 
 users in the given criterion divided by all users 
 (i.e., 144) submitting Worksheets (multiplied by 
 100 for percentage). This total is not the 
 average of the three categories of users. 
 
 46 
 
V. ON CONTINUING A DIALOGUE 
 
 The first five NOSS Conferences were 
 developed to involve the civil marine community 
 in specifying requirements for NOSS-types of data 
 and products, to determine the commonality of 
 these data among all users and to design a data 
 distribution system consistent with the requirements 
 and commonality. The Conferences represent a 
 beginning, not a conclusion, of activity. As such, 
 a summary and conclusion are not appropriate to 
 this Report. The Report itself will be used as a 
 vehicle for communication between NOSS designers 
 and the marine community. Thus, comments on 
 the Report itself and the accuracy with which it 
 reflects the Conference proceedings are encouraged. 
 
 Furthermore, the Report has been prepared 
 to reflect the content of the Conferences so that 
 non-participants in these five meetings can become 
 involved in the data planning aspects of NOSS. 
 The Worksheet in Appendix B can be submitted 
 in accordance with the accompanying instructions. 
 
 The forms by which the dialogue may be 
 continued have been cited in the previous chapter. 
 In summary, these include publication of special 
 newsletters or bulletins on a periodic basis, 
 publication in professional journals and trade 
 magazines, inclusion of user viewpoints to be shared 
 in these same publications, establishment of advisory 
 group(s) to NCAA for non-Federal users and future 
 conferences held on a periodic basis. 
 
 Those users associated with operational needs 
 and requirements strongly favor a NOSS advisory 
 group to NOAA to provide senior level input and 
 guidance. It should be noted here that any 
 committee, board, commission, council, conference, 
 panel, task force or other similar group or subgroup 
 thereof, which is established or utilized by one or 
 more Federal agencies in the interest of obtaining 
 advice or recommendations, is an advisory 
 committee within the definition of the Federal 
 Advisory Committee Act (FACA), P.L. 92-463, as 
 amended. Any new committee must be (1) 
 sanctioned by its establishment in legislation; (2) 
 specifically authorized by the President; or (3) 
 determined, as a matter of formal record, by the 
 head of the agency involved after consultation with 
 the Director (Office of Management and Fudget), 
 with timely notice published in the Federal Register, 
 to be in the public interest in connection with the 
 performance of duties imposed on the agency by 
 law. No advisory committee shall meet or take 
 any action until a charter has been filed with the 
 head of the agency to whom the committee reports 
 and with the congressional committees having 
 legislative jurisdiction. 
 
 NOAA management will review and pursue 
 those options that will best fulfill the needs of 
 oceanic users and NOAA. However, NOAA will 
 not act independently of the mechanisms by which 
 a dialogue is continued with the land-oriented user 
 community. Thus, it is anticipated that conferences, 
 workshops and advisory committee(s) will be 
 maintained or established for oceanic data users. 
 
 47 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 CONFERENCE ATTENDEES 
 
 1. List of Participants 
 
 ADAMO, Louis, C. 
 
 President 
 
 Louis C. Adamo, Inc. 
 
 P. O. Box L 
 
 Solano Beach, California 
 
 (714) 755-9754 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 92075 
 
 AHRENS, Merlin R. 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 
 
 Laboratories, NOAA 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 361-3361, Ext. 336 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 ALONSO, J.M. 
 
 P.O. Box 700 
 
 San Ysidro, California 92073 
 
 (903) 398-2201 (Mexico) 
 
 (La Jo.la) 
 
 ANDERSON, William W., Jr. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9422 
 
 Building 1002, Room 137 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4112 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 ANDREWS, J. Bruce 
 
 EG & G Environmental Consultants 
 
 151 Bear Hill Road 
 
 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 
 
 (617) 890-3710 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 ARNONE, Robert A. 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity, Code 335 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4864 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 ANDERSON, Dr. Neil R. 
 
 Visiting Scholar 
 
 Mail Code A-010 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-2040 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 ANDERSON, Richard D. 
 
 Supervisory Physicist 
 
 Naval Ocean Systems Center 
 
 San Diego, California 92152 
 
 (714) 225-6643 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 ANDERSON, Robert 
 Chief, Ocean Services Unit 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 1700 West Lake Avenue, North 
 Seattle, Washington 98109 
 (206) 442-5474 
 (Seattle) 
 
 ARTHUR, B. Edward, Jr. 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity, Code 335 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4864 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 AU, David 
 
 Southwest Fisheries Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 BACHOFER, Bruce 
 
 General Electric/Space Division 
 
 Room M-7235 
 
 P.O. Box 8555 
 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 
 
 (215) 962-3648 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 49 
 
BAIG, Steven 
 
 NOAA 
 
 1320 South Dixie Highway, Room 619 
 
 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 
 
 (305) 350-4310 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 BAKER, Karen, S- 
 
 Visibility Lab 
 
 Mail Code P-003 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 294-5534 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 BARKSON, Ed 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office 
 
 Building 1002, Room 170 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4927 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BARNES, James C. 
 
 Environmental Research Tech., Inc. 
 
 696 Virginia Road 
 
 Concord, Massachusetts 01742 
 
 (617) 369-8910 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BALLARD, Dr. J. A. 
 
 Program Manager 
 
 Marine Seismic System 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity, Code 500 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4760 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BANAS, Paul J. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BARCO, Albert L. 
 
 Graduate Student, University of Illinois 
 
 U.S. Coast Guard 
 
 Home: 202 East John Street, Apt. A-39 
 
 Champaign, Illinois 61820 
 (217) 367-1259 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 BARKER, Slade, Jr. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BARNES Miles 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BARKSON, E.L. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BARRETT, Izadore 
 
 Director, Southwest Fisheries Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 P. O. Box 271 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820, Ext. 235 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 BARTON, Colin 
 
 Vice President, Marketing 
 
 Optronics International 
 
 7 Stuart Road 
 
 Chelmsford, Massachusetts 01824 
 
 (718) 256-4511 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 50 
 
BAUMANN, Paul R. 
 
 Milne Library, Box 10 
 
 State University of New York 
 
 Oneonta, New York 13820 
 
 (607) 431-3459 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BEATTY, William H. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BECKER, Ronald E. 
 
 Center for Wetland Resources 
 
 Louisiana State University 
 
 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 
 
 (504) 388-1558 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BECKMAN, Ken 
 
 Ametek Straza 
 
 790 Greenfield Drive 
 
 San Diego, California 92022 
 
 (714) 442-3451 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 BEECK, Thomas R. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BENNETT, W.H. 
 
 Aerojet ElectroSystems 
 
 1100 West Holyvale 
 
 P.O. Box 296 
 
 Azusa, California 91702 
 
 (213) 334-6211 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 BERNARD, Eddie N. 
 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 
 NOAA 
 
 3711 15th Avenue, N.E. 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 442-0199 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 BERNARD, Lanry J. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-^403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BEZDEK, Dr. Hugo F. 
 
 Director, Atlantic Oceanographic & 
 
 Meteorological Laboratories, NOAA 
 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 526-2936 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 BIRD, Kimon T. 
 
 Harbor Branch Foundation 
 
 R.R. 1, Box 196 
 
 Ft. Pierce, FL 33450 
 
 (305) 465-2400 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 BLISS, Ken 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 P.O. Box 271 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 BLUMENTHAL, Barry 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 51 
 
BOND. C.T. 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 Building 1100 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, 
 
 (601) 688-3049 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 Mississippi 39529 
 
 BOUCHARD, Armand 
 
 Manager, Marine Division 
 
 Alden Electronics 
 
 Washington, Street 
 
 Westboro, Massachusetts 01581 
 
 (617) 366-8851 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BOWLES, Robert M. 
 U.S. Geological Survey 
 Quisset Campus, Building B 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 (617) 548-8700 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BOWLEY, Clinton J. 
 
 Environmental Research Tech., Inc. 
 
 696 Virginia Road 
 
 Concord, Massachusetts 01742 
 
 (617) 369-8910 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BRABSTON, Donald 
 
 Section Head 
 
 TRW - Defense Space Systems Group 
 
 One Space Park (R2-1162) 
 
 Redondo Beach, California 90278 
 
 (213) 535-2580 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 BRAINARD, Edward C II 
 President, Environmental Devices 
 
 Corporation 
 Tower Building 
 
 Marion, Massachusetts 02738 
 (617) 748-0366 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BRAMMER, Robert F. 
 
 The Analytic Sciences Corporation 
 
 Six Jacob Way 
 
 Reading, Massachusetts 01867 
 
 (617) 944-6850 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BRANDENBURG, Glen R. 
 Mission Bay Aquatic Center 
 1001 Santa Clara Point 
 San Diego, California 92109 
 (714) 488-3642 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 BROOME, Douglas 
 
 Code EB-8 
 
 NASA Headquarters 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20546 
 
 (202) 755-8576 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BROOME, R. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-^434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BROWDER, Joan A. 
 
 Southeast Fisheries Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service 
 
 NOAA 
 
 75 Virginia Beach Drive 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 361-5761 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 BROWN, Don 
 Ocean Data Systems 
 6000 Executive Boulevard 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 (301) 881-3031, Ext. 216 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 52 
 
BROWN, Otis B. 
 
 Meteorology & Physical Oceanography 
 
 Rosenstiel School of Marine & 
 
 Atmospheric Science 
 University of Miami 
 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 350-7491 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 BROWN, Robert 
 
 Professor, Research Faculty 
 
 Atmospheric Sciences, AK-40 
 
 University of Washington 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 
 (206) 543-4595 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 BRUCKS, John T. 
 
 Research Oceanographer 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service 
 
 NOAA 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-3650 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 BUCHMAN, Michael 
 Student, Huxley College 
 Western Washington University 
 Bellingham, Washington 98225 
 (206) 676-3520 
 (Seattle) 
 
 BUEHRENS, Clifford A. 
 
 Marine Superintendent 
 
 Marine Office 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 P.O. Box 145 
 
 Saunderstown, Rhode Island 02874 
 
 (401) 792-6203 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BURKE, Hsiao-Hua K. 
 
 Environmental Research Tech., Inc. 
 
 696 Virginia Road 
 
 Concord, Massachusetts 01742 
 
 (617) 369-8910 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 BUSHNELL, Mark 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 
 
 Laboratories, NOAA 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 361-3361 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 BUSINGER, Joost 
 Professor, Research Faculty 
 Atmospheric Sciences, AK-40 
 University of Washington 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 (206) 543-4595 
 (Seattle) 
 
 BYRNE, H. Michael 
 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 
 NOAA 
 
 3711 15th Avenue, N.E. 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 442^079 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 CAMPBELL, Colin 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Command Facility 
 
 San Diego, California 92135 
 
 (714) 437-7593 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 CAR, M. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 CAREY, Francis G. 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-1400, Ext. 2308 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 53 
 
CARLSON, Jodell J. 
 
 Research Assistant 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-1400, Ext. 2503 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 CARROLL, J.C. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 CARSEY, Dr. Frank D. 
 Code EBC-8 
 NASA Headquarters 
 Washington, D.C. 20546 
 (202) 755-8570 
 (Seattle, La Jolla) 
 
 CASHMAN, William F. 
 
 Staff Systems Scientist 
 
 RCA 
 
 P.O. Box 800 
 
 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 
 
 (609) 448-3400, Ext. 3165 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 CERNEY, Willard J. 
 
 Marine Electronics Service, Inc. 
 
 831 San Carlos Boulevard 
 
 Ft. Meyers Beach, Florida 33931 
 
 (813) 463-4451 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 CHAMBERLIN, J. Lockwood 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Atlantic Environmental Group 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 R.R. 7, South Ferry Road 
 
 Narrangansett, Rhode Island 02882 
 
 (401) 789-9326 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 CHASE, Dr. Robert 
 Code EBC-8 
 NASA Headquarters 
 Washington, D.C. 20546 
 (202) 755-8576 - 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 CHRISTENSEN, Derald R. 
 Research Associate 
 Mail Stop FX-10 
 University of Washington 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 (206) 545-1795 
 (Seattle) 
 
 CLARK, Ian M. 
 
 Interocean Systems, Inc. 
 
 3540 Aero Court 
 
 San Diego, California 92123 
 
 (714) 565-8400 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 COATS, Douglas A. 
 
 Mail Code A-030 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-2764 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 COLE, Bert L. 
 
 Commissioner of Public Lands 
 
 Department of Natural Resources 
 
 Public Lands Building 
 
 Olympia, Washington 98504 
 
 (206) 753-5317 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 COLLIER, Martin L. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 024 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4205 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 54 
 
CONNORS, James 
 
 Supervisor, Resource Analysis Division 
 
 Land Use Regulation Commission 
 
 State House, Station 22 
 
 Augusta, Maine 04333 
 
 (207) 289-2631 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 CONSER, Ramon J. 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 75 Virginia Beach Drive 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 361-5761 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 CORNILLON, Peter C- 
 
 Assistant Professor 
 
 Department of Ocean Engineering 
 
 Buss Hall 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 
 
 (401) 792-2189 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 COULTER, Robert E. 
 
 Code OE11 
 
 NOAA Data Buoy Office 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39539 
 
 (601) 688-2050 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 CROW, Michael E. 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 75 Virginia Beach Drive 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 361-5761 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 CROWE, James H. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-^375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 CURTIS, Harold 
 
 RCA Astro 
 
 P. O. Box 800 
 
 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 
 
 (609) 448-3400 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 DALE, Ron 
 Project Engineer 
 Rockwell International 
 12214 Lakewood Boulevard 
 Downey, California 90241 
 (213) 594-3036 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 DANNEMAN, Charles 
 
 General Electric/Space Division 
 
 P.O. Box 8555 
 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 
 
 (215) 962-3648 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 DANO, Paul K. 
 
 Del Norte Technology Inc. 
 
 1100 Pamela 
 
 Euless, Texas 76039 
 
 (817) 267-3541 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DANTZLER, L. Cdr. H.L. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DARRELL, Charles G. 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 727 East 2nd Street 
 Pass Christian, Mississippi 39571 
 (601) 688-4010 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 55 
 
DAVIS, Thomas M. 
 
 Advanced Technology Staff (Code 022) 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^456 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DEAKIN, Philip C. 
 
 ARINC Research Corporation 
 
 2551 Riva Road 
 
 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 
 
 (301) 266-4655 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 DEIGAN, James 
 
 Manager, Remote Sensing Systems 
 
 Optronics International 
 
 7 Stuart Road 
 
 Chelmsford, Massachusetts 01824 
 
 (617) 256-4511 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 DEINES, Kent 
 
 Ametek Straza 
 
 790 Greenfield Drive 
 
 San Diego, California 92022 
 
 (714) 442-3451 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 DENIS, Norman 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DERMODY, John 
 
 Director of Environmental Sciences 
 
 ESCA-Tech Corporation 
 
 13749-9th Avenue South 
 
 Federal Way, Washington 98003 
 
 (206) 927-8901 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 DIAL, Kenneth G. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DIXON, Richard 
 
 Code 325321 
 
 Pacific Missile Test Center 
 
 Pt. Mugu, California 93042 
 
 (805) 982-8115 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 DOBY, Karen 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DOLEZALEK, Hans 
 
 Code 462 
 
 Coastal Sciences Program 
 
 Office of Naval Research 
 
 Arlington, Virginia 22217 
 
 (202) 696-4124 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 DODD, James 
 
 U.S. Geological Survey 
 
 Quissett Campus - Building B 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-8700 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 DUNBAR, Allen 
 
 Lockheed Missiles & Space Company 
 
 P. O. Box 504 
 
 Sunnyvale, California 94086 
 
 (408) 742^876 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 56 
 
DUNNING, R.A. 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 NOAA Data Buoy Office 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-3046 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DUPONT, George T. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 DURHAM, Don L. 
 
 Code 115 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39426 
 (601) 688-4790 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 EARLY, Edward 
 Senior Engineer 
 Applied Physics Lab 
 University of Washington 
 1013 N.E. 40th Street 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 (206) 543-1300 
 (Seattle) 
 
 EDGAR Bruce 
 
 Aerospace Corporation 
 
 Box 92957 
 
 Los Angeles, California 90009 
 
 (213) 648-5621 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 EDWARDS, Dr. Robert L. 
 Director, Northeast Fisheries Center 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 (617) 548-5123 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 EINHORN, Martin 
 
 Program Manager 
 
 System Development Corporation 
 
 4025 Hancock Street 
 
 San Diego, California 92110 
 
 (714) 225-1980 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 ESTOQUE, Mariano A. 
 Rosenstiel School of Marine & 
 
 Atmospheric Science 
 University of Miami 
 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 350-7257 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 EUSTIS, Ralph W. 
 Applications Engineer 
 Sippican Corporation 
 Marion, Massachusetts 02738 
 (617) 748-1160 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 EVANS, Robert H. 
 
 Meteorology & Physical Oceanography 
 
 Rosenstiel School of Marine <& 
 
 Atmospheric Sciences 
 University of Miami 
 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 350-7491 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 FAIREY, Norman L. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FANG, Guohong 
 
 Visiting Scientist 
 
 Maritime Systems Engineering 
 
 Texas A & M University 
 
 P. O. Box 1675 
 
 Galveston, Texas 77553 
 
 (713) 766-3304 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 57 
 
FARBER, Mark I. 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 75 Virginia Beach Drive 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 361-5761 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 FARRAR, Lloyd J. 
 
 National Ocean Survey, NOAA 
 
 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive 
 
 P.O. Box 71 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 FELT, Lt. Commander Robert Y. 
 
 Oceanographer, OPNAV 
 
 U.S. Naval Observatory 
 
 34th & Massachusetts, N.W. 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20390 
 
 (202) 254-4578 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FERRIGNO, Jane G. 
 
 Geologist 
 
 U.S. Geological Survey 
 
 1925 Newton Square East 
 
 Reston, Virginia 22090 
 
 (703) 860-7887 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 FETERIS, Pieter J. 
 
 Jackson State University, Mississippi 
 
 Home: 42 Baker Avenue 
 
 Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 
 (617) 861-8706 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 FINERTY, Martin J. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 3000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4370 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FINN, John T. 
 
 Assistant Professor 
 
 Department of Forestry & Wildlife 
 
 University of Massachusetts 
 
 Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 
 
 (413) 545-2110 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 FLANDORFER, Max 
 
 Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant 
 
 P.O. Drawer AG 
 
 Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 
 
 (601) 875-9341 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FLIMLIN, George E. 
 
 N.J. Marine Advisory Service 
 
 Whitesville Road 
 
 Toms River, New Jersey 08753 
 
 (201) 349-1152 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 FLOYD, William R. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FORESTER, John W. 
 Associate Professor 
 Oceanography Department (9 d) 
 U.S. Naval Acadtmy 
 Annapolis, Maryland 21402 
 (301) 267-3561 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 FOW, Richard B. 
 Gco-/-\tmospherics Corporation 
 Tower Road, Box 177 
 Lincoln, Massachusetts 01773 
 (617) 259-9685 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 58 
 
FOX, Alan D. 
 
 Code A-025/IGPP 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-2140 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 FOX, Dr. William W. 
 
 Director, Southeast Fisheries Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 75 Virginia Beach Drive 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 361-5761 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 FRAKER, Frank 
 
 Civil Engineer 
 
 Texaco, Inc. 
 
 P.O. Box 60252 
 
 New Orleans, Louisiana 70160 
 
 (504) 524-8511 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FRANC, L.J. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4206 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FUSILLO, Lawrence 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GALVIN, Cyril 
 Coastal Engineer 
 P. O. Box 623 
 Springfield, Virginia 22160 
 (703) 455-3544 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 GARBACZ, Michael 
 
 Consultant 
 
 10420 Lake Ridge Drive 
 
 Oakton, Virginia 22124 
 
 (703) 938-0861 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 GARCIA, Salvador R. 
 Assistant Professor 
 Maritime Systems Engineering 
 Texas A & M University 
 P.O. Box 1675 
 Galveston, Texas 77553 
 (713) 766-3304 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 FRANKLIN, Ronald A. 
 
 Environmental Engineer 
 
 Raytheon 
 
 P.O. Box 360 
 
 Portsmouth, Rhode Island 02871 
 
 (401) 847-8000, Ext. 2533 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 FROHLICH, Andrew 
 
 Director, Marketing 
 
 Teledyne Systems 
 
 19601 Nordhoff 
 
 Northridge, California 91324 
 
 (213) 996-2211 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 GARGIULO, AL 
 
 Program Manager 
 
 Control Data 
 
 Mail Stop 028 
 
 215 Moffett Park Drive 
 
 Sunnyvale, California 94086 
 
 (408) 734-6189 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 GARRISON, Gerald R. 
 
 Applied Physics Lab 
 
 University of Washington 
 
 1013 N.E. 40th 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 
 (206) 543-1300 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 59 
 
GARROD, Christopher 
 
 Student 
 
 Mail Code A-008 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-2195 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 GEIGER, M.L. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GLOVER, Linda K. 
 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 
 Code OA/W161, Room 1213 
 
 8060 13th Street 
 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 (301) 427-7278 
 
 (Key Biscayne, Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GOLDSMITH, Roger A. 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 
 
 10 School Street 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-1400 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 GEISENDERFER, R.D. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GERGEL, Thomas J. 
 
 Box 10, Milne Library 
 
 State University of New York 
 
 Oneonta, New York 13820 
 
 (607) 431-3459 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GETMAN, Charles 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GLAZMAN, Roman 
 Research Associate III 
 Department of Ocean Engineering 
 University of Rhode Island 
 Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 
 (401) 792-2189 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 GOODMAN, Doug 
 
 Systems Engineer 
 
 Mail Stop 028 
 
 Control Data 
 
 215 Moffett Park Drive 
 
 Sunnyvale, California 94086 
 
 (408) 734-6189 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 GORMAN, John 
 
 Code 311 
 
 U.S. Naval Underwater Systems Center 
 
 New London, Connecticut 03669 
 
 (203) 447-4679 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 GOTT, Cdr. Charles L. 
 SEA USE Council 
 1101 Seattle Tower 
 Seattle, Washington 98101 
 (206) 624-1567 
 (Seattle) 
 
 GOWANS, George K. 
 Science Applications, Inc. 
 8400 Westpark Drive 
 McLean, Virginia 22102 
 (703) 734-5807 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 60 
 
GRECZY, Laslo 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity, Code 302 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4720 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GREENE, Frank 
 
 Technology Development of California 
 
 3990 Freedom Circle 
 
 Santa Clara, California 95054 
 
 (408) 988-3030 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GRIFFIN, Dr. James J. 
 
 Director of Facilities 
 
 Graduate School of Oceanography 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 Kingston, Rhode Island 02822 
 
 (401) 792-6110 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 GRIFFITH, Clayton D. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 023 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4205 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 GUBEREK, Michael P. 
 
 Remote Sensing Station Manager 
 
 Code A-030 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-2292 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 HADDAD, Kenneth D. 
 
 Senior Biologist 
 
 Florida Department of Natural Resources 
 
 Marine Research Lab 
 
 100 - 8th Avenue S.E. 
 
 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 
 
 (813) 896-8626 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 HAGINS, Michael 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 Buiding 2204 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-3305 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HAHN, Walter L. 
 
 Product Manager, Project Development 
 
 Department 61-30/B-104 
 
 Lockheed Missiles & Space Company 
 
 P. O. Box 504 
 
 Sunnyvale, California 94086 
 
 (408) 743-0955 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 HAHN, WILLIAM 
 
 Manager 
 
 Graduate School of Oceanography 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 
 
 (401) 792-6137 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 HALE, D. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HALL, R.T. 
 
 Polar Science Center 
 
 Mail Stop JC-10 
 
 University of Washington 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 
 (206) 543-6613 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 HALLOCK, Z. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 68^4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 61 
 
HAMILTON, G.D. 
 
 NOAA Data Buoy Office 
 
 Building 1100 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-2800 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HAMMACK, James A. 
 
 Naval Oceanograhic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HAMMOCK, John W. 
 
 T Systems, Inc. 
 
 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway 
 
 Arlington, Virginia 22202 
 
 (703) 521-6535 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HANKINS, Jonathan G. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 026 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HANNON, James M. 
 Oceanographic Specialist 
 Sippican Corporation 
 Marion, Massachusetts 02738 
 (617) 748-1160 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 HANSON, Joe A. 
 
 Supervisor, Applications Analysis Group 
 
 Jet Propulsion Lab 
 
 Mail Stop 507-207 
 
 4800 Oak Grove Drive 
 
 Pasadena, California 92203 
 
 (213) 577-9282 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 HARBELL, Steve C. 
 
 Washington Sea Grant 
 
 Washington State University Extension 
 
 Courthouse, Box 552 
 
 Montesano, Washington 98563 
 
 (206) 249-4332 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 HARDING, Roger 
 
 Inventory Manager 
 
 Department of Natural Resources 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 Olympia, Washington 98504 
 
 (206) 753-5338 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 HARDY, Kenneth R. 
 
 Environmental Research Tech., Inc. 
 
 696 Virginia Road 
 
 Concord, Massachusetts 01742 
 
 (617) 369-8910 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 HARLOW, Charles A. 
 Remote Sensing Laboratory 
 College of Engineering 
 Louisiana State University 
 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 
 (504) 388-8417 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HARRIS, Allen 
 
 Senior Scientist 
 
 Science Applications Inc. 
 
 3 Preston Court 
 
 Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 
 
 (617) 275-2200 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 HARRIS, M.M. 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 Building 2204 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-2292 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 62 
 
HATTEN, R.E. 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 Building 3203 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, 
 
 (601) 688-2831 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 Mississippi 39522 
 
 HAVENER, D.L. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HAYES, Dr. Murray L. 
 
 Resource Assessment & Conservation 
 
 Engineering Division 
 Office of Northwest & Alaska Fisheries 
 Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 2725 Montlake Boulevard East 
 Seattle, Washington 98112 
 (206) 442-7719 
 (Seattle) 
 
 HAYNES, Kent A. 
 
 Sales Consultant 
 
 Control Data 
 
 8616 Latijera Boulevard 
 
 Los Angeles, California 90045 
 
 (213) 642-2269 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 HAYWARD, Gary G. 
 
 Vice President & Director of R&D 
 
 Benthos, Inc. 
 
 Edgerton Drive 
 
 North Falmouth, 
 
 (617) 563-5917 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 Massachusetts 02556 
 
 HAZELWOOD, R.N. 
 
 Staff Scientist 
 
 Global Marine Development 
 
 P.O. Box 3010 
 
 Newport Beach, California 92663 
 
 (714) 752-5050 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 HEALEY, Thomas 
 
 Manager, Business Development 
 
 HARRIS Corporation 
 
 P.O. Box 37 
 
 Melbourne, Florida 32901 
 
 (305) 727-4743 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 HECKER, Stanley 
 
 Deputy Director 
 
 Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant 
 
 P.O. Drawer AG 
 
 Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 
 
 (601) 875-9341 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HEIMERDINGER. George 
 
 Northeast Liaison Officer 
 
 Environmental Data & Information Service, 
 
 NOAA 
 
 Clark Laboratory 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-1400, Ext. 2497 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 HERRITT, John 
 
 Gravity Division 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4067 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HOLT, Ben 
 
 Jet Propulsion Lab 
 
 4800 Oak Grove Drive 
 
 Pasadena, California 91103 
 
 (213) 354-5473 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 HOLYER, Ronald J. 
 
 Mathematician 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39576 
 (601) 688-4864 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 63 
 
HONEY, Richard C. 
 
 Stanford Research Institute (SRI) 
 
 International 
 
 Menlo Park, California 94025 
 
 (415) 326-6200 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 HOPPE, Eugene R. 
 
 Satellite Data Systems Division 
 
 Environmental Date & Information 
 
 System, NOAA 
 World Weather Building 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 (301) 763-8111 
 (Key Biscayne, Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HORSLEY, Vern 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9120 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4135 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HORTON, Charles 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 HUGO, Charles 
 
 Senior Principal Engineer 
 
 Sanders Associates 
 
 95 Canal Street 
 
 Nashua, New Hampshire 03061 
 
 (603) 885-4528 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 HUNT, Donald H. 
 
 Office of Programs & International 
 
 Activities 
 NOAA/Code RD1 
 6010 Executive Boulevard 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 (301) 443-8971 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 HUNT, Dorothy W. 
 616 Upham Place 
 Vienna, Virginia 22180 
 (703) 938-8083 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 IANNIELLO, John 
 
 Naval Underwater Systems Center 
 
 New London, Connecticut 06320 
 
 (203) 447-4512 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 IMATAMI, Toshio 
 
 Space Systems Department 
 
 Mitsubishi Electric Corporation 
 
 325 Kamimachiya 
 
 Kamakura City, Japan 
 
 04-67^4-1171 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 INGRAHAM, W. James, Jr. 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 2725 Montlake Boulevard East 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98112 
 
 (206) 442-7549 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 INGRAM, C. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 IRBY, Edwin W., Jr. 
 
 Marine Biologist 
 
 State of Florida/Department of 
 
 Natural Resources 
 Bureau of Marine Science & Technology 
 West Palm Beach Field Station 
 727 Belvedere Road 
 West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 
 (305) 832-2906 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 64 
 
ISAJI, Tatsusburo 
 
 Graduate Research Assistant 
 
 Department of Ocean Engineering 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 
 
 (401) 792-5923 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 JACOBS, R.E. 
 
 Office of the Commander 
 
 Naval Oceanography Command 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4881 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 JENKINS, Minor R. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 JOBST, W.J. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 JOHNSON, A.W. 
 
 System Development Corporation 
 
 7929 Westpark Drive 
 
 McLean, Virginia 22102 
 
 (703) 790-9850 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 JOHNSTON, Richard A. 
 
 Business Manager 
 
 System Development Corporation 
 
 2500 Colorado Avenue 
 
 Santa Monica, California 90406 
 
 (213) 820-4111 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 JONES, James I. 
 
 Director 
 
 Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant 
 
 Consortium 
 P.O. Drawer AG 
 
 Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 
 (601) 875-9341 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 KARAS, Michael C. 
 
 Marine Geologist 
 
 Nekton, Inc. 
 
 11578 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 25 
 
 San Diego, California 92121 
 
 (714) 452-9540 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 KATSAROS, Kristina B. 
 Resident Associate Professor 
 Atmospheric Sciences, AK-40 
 University of Washington 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 (206) 543-1203 
 (Seattle) 
 
 KELLY, Linda M. 
 
 ADP Coordinator, ICP 
 
 General Services Administration 
 
 John W. McCormick Post Office & 
 
 Court House 
 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 
 (617) 223-6277 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 KEMMERER, Dr. Andrew J. 
 
 Director, National Fisheries Engineering 
 
 Laboratory 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-3650 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 KERUT, E.G. 
 
 NOAA Data Buoy Office 
 
 Building 1100 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-2800 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 65 
 
KERLING, J.L. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7230 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^*533 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 KETCHEN, H. Gregory 
 
 Assistant Professor 
 
 Department of Physical & Ocean Sciences 
 
 U.S. Coast Guard Academy 
 
 New London, Connecticut 06320 
 
 (203) 443-8463 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 KHEDOURI, Edward 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 68^4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 KNAPP, David 
 
 Deputy Program Manager 
 
 McDonnell Douglas 
 
 5301 Bolsa Avenue 
 
 Huntington Beach, California 92647 
 
 (714) 896-1396 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 KNICKLE, James 
 Satellite Business Systems 
 8003 Westpark Drive 
 McLean, Virginia 22102 
 (703) 471-3436 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 KNIGHT, Ronald D. 
 
 Business Development Manager 
 
 System Development Corporation 
 
 2500 Colorado Avenue 
 
 Santa Monica, California 90406 
 
 (213) 820-4111 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 KOPENSKI, Ronald P. 
 NOAA/MESA Puget Sound Project 
 7600 Sand Point Way NE 
 Seattle, Washington 98115 
 (206) 442-5590 
 (Seattle) 
 
 KORGEN, B.J. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 KOZAK, Ron 
 
 NOAA Data Buoy Office 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-2806 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 LACOUR, Ernest E. 
 
 EXXON Production Research Center 
 
 P.O. Box 2189 
 
 Houston, Texas 77001 
 
 (713) 965-4442 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 LANDIS, Robert C. 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric 
 
 Services, NOAA 
 6010 Executive Boulevard 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 (301) 443-8811 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 LA POINTE, Thomas 
 
 Environmental Engineer 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 
 NOAA 
 
 Page 1 Building, Code CZ/RC 
 
 2001 Wisconsin Avenue 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 
 (202) 634-4120 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 66 
 
LASKER, Reuben 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 P.O. Box 271 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 LAURS, R. Michael 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 P.O. Box 271 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 LA VIOLETTE, Paul E. 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4864 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 LEAR, William 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8130 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay S. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4053 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 LEITZELL, Terry L. 
 
 Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
 
 Office of Fisheries, NOAA 
 
 Code F - Page 2 - Room 400 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 
 (202) 634-7283 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 LESCHINE, Thomas M. 
 
 Crowell House 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-1400, Ext. 2303 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 LEVIN, Alan 
 
 Member, Technical Staff 
 
 TRW - Defense Space Systems Group 
 
 One Space Park (R2-1162) 
 
 Redondo Beach, California 90278 
 
 (213) 535-2580 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 LEW, Liong 
 Program Manager 
 Rockwell International 
 12214 Lakewood Boulevard 
 Downey, California 90241 
 (213) 594-3036 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 LEWANDO, Alfred G. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 LEWIS, Lawrence V. 
 Technical Staff 
 Rockwell International 
 12214 Lakewood Boulevard 
 Downey, California 90241 
 (213) 594-3641 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 LEWIS, Richard D. 
 
 Senior Systems Engineer 
 
 Science Applications, Inc. 
 
 101 Continental Boulevard, Suite 310 
 
 El Segundo, California 90245 
 
 (213) 640-0480, Ext. 316 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 LITTLE, Gene 
 
 Department of Natural Resources 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 Olympia, Washington 98504 
 
 (206) 753-5317 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 67 
 
LOOMIS, Peter B. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 LOVORN, Tom 
 
 Lockheed Ocean Laboratory 
 
 3380 North Harbor Drive 
 
 San Diego, California 92101 
 
 (714) 298-8245 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 LUSK, Donald B. 
 
 Crowley Maritime Corporation 
 
 P.O. Box 2287 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98111 
 
 (206) 583-8100 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 LYLES, Charles 
 
 Executive Director 
 
 Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 
 
 P.O. Box 726 
 
 Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 
 
 (601) 875-5912 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 LYNN, Ron 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 P.O. Box 271 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 MAHONEY, Joseph P. 
 Director of Agency Services 
 General Services Administration 
 John W. McCormick Post Office & 
 
 Court House 
 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 
 (617) 223-6277 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 MAIRS, Robert 
 
 National Environmental Satellite 
 
 Service, NOAA 
 Code OA/S13, WWBG #607 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 (301) 763-8081 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 MANNA, Tony 
 
 RCA 
 
 Box 800 
 
 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 
 
 (609) 448-3400 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 MARTIN, Robert L. 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4790 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 MARTIN, Seelye 
 
 Research Professor 
 
 Department of Oceanography 
 
 WB-10 
 
 University of Washington 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 
 (206) 543-6438 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 MARTINEAU, Dr. Donald P. 
 
 Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator 
 
 Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Services 
 
 NOAA 
 
 Building 5/Room 908/Code OA x 1 
 
 6010 Executive Boulevard 
 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 
 (301) 443-8110 
 
 (Key Biscayne, Bay St. Louis) 
 
 MASCARENWAS, Affonso 
 
 Graduate Student 
 
 Room 54-1711 
 
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
 
 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 
 
 (617) 253-5050 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 68 
 
MATTHEWS, Robert C. 
 
 General Engineer 
 
 Naval Ocean System Center 
 
 Code 722 S 
 
 San Diego, California 92152 
 
 (714) 225-2014 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 MATURI, Eileen 
 Oceanographer 
 Room 601/514 
 NOAA/NESS 
 U.S. Department 
 Washington, D.C. 
 (301) 763-8282 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 of Commerce 
 20233 
 
 MAUL, Dr. George 
 
 Research Oceanographer 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 
 
 Laboratories, NOAA 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 526-2936 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 McCAIN, William H. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 McCLURE, Marty 
 
 Graduate School of Oceanography 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 Bay Campus 
 
 Narrangansett, Rhode Island 02882 
 
 (401) 792-6265 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 McDONALD, John W. 
 
 Professor 
 
 Department of Geography 
 
 University of Southern California 
 
 Los Angeles, California 90007 
 
 (213) 741-2366 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 McDonnell, John r. 
 
 Commander 
 
 Naval Oceanography Command 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4883 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 McGOVERN, Daniel 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 McKELVEY, Paul 
 Peace Publications 
 Mandeville, Louisiana 
 (504) 626-3151 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 McLEISH, William 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 
 
 Laboratories, NOAA 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 361-3361, Ext. 336 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 McNAMARA, Frank 
 
 Senior Scientist 
 
 Science Applications, Inc. 
 
 3 Preston Court 
 
 Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 
 
 (617) 275-2200 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 McNUTT, S. Lyn 
 
 Research Scientist 
 
 SAI Northwest 
 
 13400 Northup Way 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 442-4850 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 69 
 
MERCIER Joseph 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St- Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-3305 
 
 (Bay St- Louis) 
 
 MERRIFIELD, R 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 MEYERS, Gary 
 
 Code A-030 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-4596 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 MILLER, Arthur R. 
 
 Associate Scientist 
 
 Box 721 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 MILLER, George 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 5003 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-4497 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 MOERSDORF, Paul F. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 MOFFATT. Robert J. 
 Sales Manager 
 Crouse-Hinds Electro 
 15146 Downey Avenue 
 Paramount, California 90723 
 (213) 630-4252 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 MORE, Keith 
 
 Advanced Programs 
 
 Bendix Corporation, Aerospace 
 
 Operations 
 1919 Green Road 
 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107 
 (303) 665-7766 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 MORISON, James H. 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Polar Science Center 
 
 4057 Roosevelt Way, N.E. 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 543-6613 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 MORSE, Richard M. 
 
 Associate Director for Marine Sciences 
 
 Environmental Data & Information 
 
 Service, NOAA 
 Code OA/D1x2/Page 2/Room 555 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 (202) 634-7393 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 MOURAD, George 
 
 Project Manager/Satellite Applications 
 
 Battelle Columbus Laboratories 
 
 505 King Avenue 
 
 Columbus, Ohio 43201 
 
 (614) 424-5097 
 
 (Seattle, La Jolla) 
 
 MURDOCK, John M. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 70 
 
MUSTAFA, Helen 
 
 Northeast Fisheries Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Servcie, NOAA 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-5123 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 NAMEJKO, Robert 
 
 Zand Corporation 
 
 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, #100 
 
 Arlington, Virginia 22202 
 
 (703) 521-1627 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 NELSON, Lt. J. A. 
 
 Naval Oceangraphic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 NOVAK, Richard E. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 O'CONNOR Daniel 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 ORR, Charles W. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 ORTWEN, N.R. 
 
 Naval Ocean System Center 
 
 San Diego, California 92152 
 
 (714) 225-7824 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 OSBORN, Roger T. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 OSTAPOFF, Feodor 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 
 
 Laboratories, NOAA 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 361-3361 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 OTTKE, Susan 
 Jet Propulsion Lab 
 4800 Oak Grove Drive 
 Pasadena, California 91103 
 (213) 354-7578 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 OLSON, Kurt N. 
 
 Institute of Natural & Environmental 
 
 Resources 
 James Hall 
 
 University of New Hampshire 
 Durham, New Hampshire 03824 
 (603) 862-1020 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 71 
 
OVERLAND, Dr. James E. 
 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 
 NO A A 
 
 3711 15th Avenue, N.E. 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 442-4079 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 OWEN, Dr. Thomas B. 
 
 Assistant Administrator for Oceanic & 
 
 Atmospheric Services, NOAA 
 6010 Executive Boulevard 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 (301) 443-8110 
 (Seattle, La Jolla) 
 
 PAIGE, Marshall 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 PARTAGAS, Jose Fernandez 
 Rosenstiel School of Marine & 
 
 Atmospheric Science 
 University of Miami 
 5600 Rickenbacker Causeway 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 284-3033 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 PAUL, David, Jr. 
 
 Electronic Research Engineer 
 
 Lockheed Missiles & Space Company 
 
 P.O. Box 504 
 
 Sunnyvale, California 94086 
 
 (408) 742-0985 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 PAUST, Brian 
 
 Agent, Marine Advisory Program 
 
 University of Alaska 
 
 P.O. Box 1329 
 
 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 
 
 (907) 772-3381 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 PELACZ, Jose 
 
 Graduate Department, Code A-008 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-7992 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 PETERS. David J.H. 
 
 Offshore Technology Group, Room 111 NT 
 
 Conoco, Inc. 
 
 P.O. Box 1267 
 
 Ponca City, Oklahoma 74601 
 
 (405) 767-4165 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 PYBUS, Don 
 Florida Sea Grant 
 7370 N-W. 36th Street 
 Miami, Florida 
 (305) 592-9785 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 PILICY, Joe 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6120 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4245 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 PIWOWAR, Thomas M. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4205 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 PLANT, William J. 
 
 Naval Research Lab, Code 4344 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20375 
 
 (202) 767-2095 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 72 
 
POSTEL, James 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Department of Oceanography - WB10 
 
 University of Washington 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98195 
 
 (206) 543-6141 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 POTTER, Dr. Thomas D. 
 Director, Environmental Data & 
 
 Information Service, NOAA 
 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 (301) 634-7319 
 (Seattle) 
 
 POUNDER. Ted 
 
 JPL/NOSS Representative 
 
 Jet Propulsion Lab/Mail Stop 264 420 
 
 4800 Oak Grove Drive 
 
 Pasadena, California 91103 
 
 (213) 354-5490 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 POWELL, George H. 
 
 ARINC Research Corporation 
 
 P.O. Box 85130 
 
 San Diego, California 92138 
 
 (714) 299-7561 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 POWERS, Joseph E. 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 75 Virginia Beach Drive 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 361-5761 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 PRICE, James C. 
 
 D.E. Britt Associates, Inc. 
 
 533 N.E. 13th Street 
 
 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 
 
 (305) 764-6888 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 PROVOST, S.M. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 PRYKE, Ian W. 
 
 European Space Agency 
 
 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 1404 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20024 
 
 (202) 488-4158 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 PULLEN, Patricia E. 
 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 
 NOAA 
 
 3711 15th Avenue, N.E. 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 442^850 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 RANDALL, Phil 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 Building 1100 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-3046 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 RAPOSA, Sharon L. 
 
 Optronics International 
 
 7 Stuart Road 
 
 Chelmsford, Massachusetts 01824 
 
 (617) 256-4540 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 REED, Ronald K. 
 
 Oceanographer 
 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 
 NOAA 
 
 3711 15th Avenue, N.W. 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 442-1960 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 73 
 
RHODE, C. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 RICHTER, Gregory S. 
 Environmental Data & Information 
 
 Service, NOAA 
 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W., #534 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 (202) 634-7489 
 (Key Biscayne, Bay St. Louis) 
 
 RIFMAN, Dr. Samuel 
 
 Manager, Advanced Systems 
 
 TRW - Defense & Space Systems Group 
 
 One Space Park, Mail Station R2-1144 
 
 Redondo Beach, California 90278 
 
 (213) 536-2340 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 ROBINSON, Alfred C. 
 Battelle Columbus Labs 
 505 King Avenue 
 Columbus, Ohio 43201 
 (614) 424-5105 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 RONA, Peter A. 
 
 Research Geophysicist 
 
 NOAA 
 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Bay 
 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 361-3361 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 ROSE, Jeffrey 
 
 Southern Maine Vocational 
 
 Technical Institute 
 Ford Road 
 
 S. Portland, Maine 04106 
 (207) 799-7303 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 & 
 
 ROSS, Nelson C, Jr. 
 EDIS Liaison Officer 
 Environmental Data & Information 
 Service, NOAA 
 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive 
 P.O. Box 271 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 (714) 453-2820 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 ROWE, Francis D. 
 
 Ametek Straza 
 
 790 Greenfield Drive 
 
 San Diego, California 92022 
 
 (714) 442-3451 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 ROYER, Thomas C. 
 
 Associate Professor 
 
 IMS 
 
 University of Alaska 
 
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 
 
 (907) 479-7835 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 RYAN, Richard 
 
 Manager, Science Applications, Inc. 
 
 101 Continental Boulevard, Suite 310 
 
 El Segundo, California 90245 
 
 (213) 640-0480, Ext. 215 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 SANBORN, Warren, H. 
 
 Physical Science Technologist 
 
 Code 335 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4804 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 SANCHEZ, A. 
 
 P.O. Box 700 
 
 San Ysidro, California 92073 
 
 (903) 398-2153 (Mexico) 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 74 
 
SAUNDERS, Peter 
 Graduate Student 
 204 Holdsworth Hall 
 University of Massachusetts 
 Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 
 (413) 545-2011 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 SCHAFER, C.T. 
 
 Bedford Institute of Oceanography 
 
 P.O. Box 1006 
 
 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia 
 
 Canada 
 
 (902) 426-7334 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 SCHEXNAYDER, Joel W. 
 Meteorologist in Charge 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 1120 Old Spanish Trail 
 Slidell, Louisiana 70458 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 SCHLEPPENBACH, Max D. 
 
 System Development Corporation 
 
 2500 Colorado Avenue 
 
 Santa Monica, California 90406 
 
 (213) 820-4111 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 SCHMIDT, John N. 
 
 Code 335 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4864 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 SCHULKIN, Dr. Morris 
 
 Principal Physicist 
 
 University of Washington/Applied 
 
 Physics Lab 
 Home: 9325 Orchard Brook Drive 
 Potomac, Maryland 20854 
 (301) 340-7898 
 (Seattle) 
 
 SCOTT, Gerald 
 
 Graduate Student 
 
 Graduate School of Oceanography 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 
 
 (401) 792-6210 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 SCOTT, Robert 
 
 Remote Sensing Coordinator 
 
 Department of Natural Resources, QW21 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 Olympia, Washington 98504 
 
 (206) 753-5338 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 SELFRIDGE, Samuel W. 
 
 Oceanroutes, Inc. 
 
 3260 Hillview Avenue 
 
 Palo Alto, California 94304 
 
 (415) 493-3660 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 SHANK, Mitchell K. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis. Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 SHEMANSKI, Ronald J. 
 
 Chief Warrant Officer 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Command Facility 
 
 San Diego, California 92135 
 
 (714) 437-7593 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 SHERMAN, Kenneth 
 
 Director, Narragansett Laboratory 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Serivce, NOAA 
 
 R.R. 7A, Box 522A 
 
 Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 
 
 (401) 789-9326 
 
 (Woods Hold) 
 
 75 
 
SHORT, Kent S. 
 
 Ocean Services Unit 
 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 
 1700 Westlake Avenue North 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98109 
 
 (206) 442-5474 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 SITARZ, Walter A. 
 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 
 1600 Port Boulevard 
 
 Miami, Florida 33132 
 
 (305) 358-6027 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 SMITH, Kathleen 
 
 Gulf Coast Research Lab 
 
 Ocean Springs, Mississippi 
 
 (601) 875-2244 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 - East Beach 
 39564 
 
 SMITH, Lee 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-^403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 SNYDER, Gerald 
 
 Business Development 
 
 Teledyne Systems 
 
 19601 Nordhoff 
 
 Northridge, California 91324 
 
 (213) 886-2211 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 SORENSON, Frederick H. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 SPRAGUE, V. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 STANFORD, George 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4790 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 STANLEY, Rear Adm. E.D., Jr. 
 
 Secretary 
 
 SEA USE Council 
 
 1101 Seattle Tower 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98101 
 
 (206) 624-1567 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 STEELE, K.E. 
 
 NOAA Data Buoy Office 
 
 Building 1100 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-2806 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 STEG, Dr. Leo 
 
 Chief Scientist, Space Division 
 
 General Electric 
 
 P.O. Box 8555 
 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 
 
 (215) 962-2180 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 STEINER, James W. 
 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 
 2980 Pacific Highway 
 
 San Diego, California 92101 
 
 (714) 297-2107 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 76 
 
STEVENS, Elizabeth G. 
 
 Biological Technician 
 
 Southwest Fisheries Center 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 
 
 P.O. Box 271 
 
 La Jolla, California 92038 
 
 (714) 453-2820 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 STEVENSON, Dr. Robert E. 
 
 Mail Code A-010 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-2040 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 STILLWAUGH, Sidney D. 
 Environmental Data & Information 
 
 Service, NOAA 
 7600 Sand Point Way N.E. 
 Seattle, Washington 98115 
 (206) 442-5704 
 (Seattle) 
 
 STONE, Donald 
 
 Director, Section Activities 
 
 American Institute of Aeronautics & 
 
 Astronautics 
 9841 Airport Boulevard, Suite 800 
 Los Angeles, California 90045 
 (213) 641-^100 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 STRAUSS, James R. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 8000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^1375 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 SULLIVAN, Thomas L. 
 
 Environmental Quality Control Board 
 
 Broward County 
 
 500 SW 14th Court 
 
 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33317 
 
 (305) 765-5248 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 SYLVESTER, John 
 
 Environmental Data & Information 
 
 Service, NOAA 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 361-3361 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 TAMUL, J. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 TANAKA, Hirokazu 
 
 Assistant Manager 
 
 Mitsubishi Electric Corporation 
 
 325 Kamimachiya 
 
 Kamakura City, Japan 
 
 04-67-44-1171 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 TEAGUE, W. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 THACKER, W.C. 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 
 
 Laboratories 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 362-3361, Ext. 336 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 THIELE, Maurice G. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 6000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4553 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 77 
 
THOMPSON, Bertrand J. 
 
 Chief, Oceanographic Services Branch 
 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 
 Code W161 
 
 8060 13th Street 
 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 (301) 427-7278 
 
 (Seattle, La Jolla, Woods Hole) 
 
 THOMPSON, Patricia 
 Computer Sciences Department 
 c/o Applied Physics Lab 
 Johns Hopkins University 
 Laurel, Maryland 21811 
 (301) 953-7100, Ext. 7132 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 THOMPSON, Thomas W. 
 
 Staff Scientist 
 
 Science Applications, Inc. 
 
 Suite 218 
 
 282 South Lake Avenue 
 
 Pasadena, California 91101 
 
 (213) 449-4955 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 TILLMAN 
 P Station 
 Bay St. Louis, 
 (601) 688-4434 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 J ames 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 39522 
 
 TOMCHAY, John 
 
 Electrical Engineer 
 
 Sea-Air Interaction Lab 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological 
 
 Laboratories, NOAA 
 15 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key 
 Miami, Florida 33149 
 (305) 361-3361, Ext. 336 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 TRAVERS, James 
 
 National Weather Service, NOAA 
 
 585 Stewart Avenue 
 
 Garden City, New York 11530 
 
 (212) 995-3712 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 TRENBERTH, Betty 
 
 Program Manager 
 
 Advanced Technology Applications 
 
 Aerojet ElectroSystems 
 
 P.O. Box 296 
 
 Azusa, California 91702 
 
 (213) 334-6211, Ext. 6155 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 TWITCHELL, Paul F. 
 
 Office of Naval Research East 
 
 666 Summer Street 
 
 Boston, Massachusetts 02210 
 
 (617) 542-8542 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 UNTERSTEINER, Dr. Norbert 
 
 Director, Ocean Programs Office 
 
 NOAA 
 
 6010 Executive Boulevard, Room 1025 
 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 
 (301) 443-8963 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 VAN DYKE, G.I. 
 
 Code A-008/TRW 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (213) 536-3410 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 VAN LOPIK, Jack 
 
 Center for Wetland Resources 
 
 Louisiana State University 
 
 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 
 
 (504) 388-6710 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 VAN METER, Dr. Keith 
 
 Department of Emergency Medicine & 
 
 Hyperbaric Medicine 
 JoEllen Smith Memorial Hospital 
 4444 General Meyer Avenue 
 New Orleans, Louisiana 70114 
 (504) 363-7111 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 78 
 
VAREDARAJAN, Roger 
 
 Research Engineer 
 
 Dames & Moore Consultants 
 
 44 Mall Road 
 
 Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 
 
 (617) 273-3080 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 VERGNE, Philippe 
 Living Marine Resources 
 11339 Construction Court 
 San Diego, California 92122 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 VON ZWECK, O. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 7000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4434 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 VEAL, C. David 
 
 Program Leader 
 
 Sea Grant Advisory Service 
 
 4646 West Beach Boulevard, Suite 1-E 
 
 Biloxi, Mississippi 39531 
 
 (601) 388-4710 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 VIGLIOTTI, Vincent 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 9000 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688^*403 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 WALTER, Bernie 
 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 
 NOAA 
 
 3711 15th Avenue, N.E. 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98105 
 
 (206) 442-4850 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 WANG, Yu-Hwa 
 Department Head 
 Maritime Systems Engineering 
 Texas A & M University 
 P.O. Box 1675 
 Galveston, Texas 77553 
 (713) 766-3304 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 WARD, Robert L. 
 
 Staff Engineer 
 
 Lockheed Missiles & Space Company 
 
 P.O. Box 504 
 
 Sunnyvale, California 94086 
 
 (408) 742-0985 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 WARD, Sallie P. 
 
 D.P. Associates 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-2834 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 WASNER, James A. 
 
 Research Engineer 
 
 Boeing Aerospace Company 
 
 P.O, Box 3999, Stop 20-77 
 
 Seattle, Washington 98124 
 
 (206) 655-0435 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 WASOWSKI, Stan 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity, Code 115 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4888 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 WEBER, E.A. 
 
 Division Manager 
 
 Science Applications, Inc. 
 
 101 Continental Boulevard, Suite 310 
 
 El Segundo, California 90245 
 
 (213) 640-0480, Ext. 250 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 79 
 
WEINSTEIN, Dr. Alan 
 
 Naval Environmental Prediction 
 
 Research Facility 
 Monterey, California 93940 
 (408) 646-2675 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 WHITE, Ronald 
 
 National Hurricane Center 
 
 Gables 1 Tower 
 
 1320 South Dixie 
 
 Coral Gables, Florida 33149 
 
 (305) 666-0413 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 WHITEHEAD, John A. 
 
 Associate Scientist 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-1400, Ext. 2793 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 WILEIN, Frank 
 
 Computer Sciences Corporation 
 
 Building 2204 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 
 (601) 688-3305 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 WILLIAMS, Frank G. 
 
 Chief, Weather Services, Pacific Region 
 
 Atmospheric Environment Service 
 
 700 1200 W. 73rd Avenue 
 
 Vancouver, British Columbia 
 
 Canada 
 
 (604) 732-4779 
 
 (Seattle) 
 
 WILSON, Michael 
 
 Geography Remote Sensing 
 
 University of California 
 
 Santa Barbara, California 93106 
 
 (805) 961-4354 
 
 (La jolla) 
 
 WILSON, Wayne H. 
 
 Resident Physicist 
 
 Mail Code P-003 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 294-5534 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 WINN, Howard E. 
 
 Professor, Oceanography and Zoology 
 
 Graduate School of Oceanography 
 
 University of Rhode Island 
 
 Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 
 
 (401) 792-6251 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 WOLFF, Paul M. 
 
 Vice President 
 
 Ocean Data Systems, Inc. 
 
 2400 Garden Road 
 
 Monterey, California 93940 
 
 (408) 373-2011 
 
 (Seattle, La Jolla) 
 
 WOODS, John F. 
 
 Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 4701 
 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39522 
 
 (601) 688-4205 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 WRIGHT, Dave 
 
 Manager, Advanced Systems Marketing 
 
 General Electric/Space Division 
 
 P.O. Box 8555 
 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 
 
 (215) 962-3409 
 
 (Key Biscayne) 
 
 WRITNER, Robert 
 
 Remote Sensing Station Manager 
 
 Code A-030 
 
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
 
 La Jolla, California 92093 
 
 (714) 452-2292 
 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 80 
 
WU, S.T. 
 
 Earth Resource Lab 
 
 NSTL Station, Mississippi 
 
 (601) 688-3830 
 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 39529 
 
 XENOS, Elaine C. 
 Jet Propulsion Lab 
 4800 Oak Grove Drive 
 Pasadena, California 91103 
 (213) 354-7578 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 YERMACK, Larry 
 
 Director, Marketing & Advanced 
 
 Planning 
 RCA Box 800 
 
 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 
 (609) 448-3400, Ext. 2706 
 (La Jolla) 
 
 ZAITZEFF, James 
 
 Department of Ocean Engineering 
 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
 
 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 
 
 (617) 548-1400 
 
 (Woods Hole) 
 
 ZALKAN, Robert L. 
 
 Naval Ocean Research & Development 
 
 Activity, Code 330 
 NSTL Station 
 
 Bay St. Louis, Mississippi 39529 
 (601) 688-4852 
 (Bay St. Louis) 
 
 81 
 
2. Confer ence Presenters 
 
 NOSS 
 
 LEITZELL, Terry L. 
 
 Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
 
 Office of Fisheries/NOAA 
 
 Code F, Page 2, Room 400 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 
 (202) 634-7283 
 
 OWEN, Dr. Thomas B. 
 
 Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and 
 
 Atmospheric Services, NOAA 
 6010 Executive Boulevard 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 (301) 443-8110 
 
 MARTINEAU, Dr. Donald P. 
 
 Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator 
 
 Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Services 
 
 NOAA/OAx1 
 
 RB 5, Room 908 
 
 Rockville, Maryland 20852 
 
 (301) 443-8110 
 
 DE COTIIS, Arthur G. 
 NOAA/NESS/S63 
 FB4, Room 3010 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 (301) 763-5390 
 
 HUSSEY, W. John 
 
 NOSS Deputy Program Manager 
 
 NOAA/S6 
 
 FB 4, Room 3010 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 
 (301) 763-2582 
 
 KNISKERN, Franklin E. 
 NOAA/NESS/S132 
 WWB, Room 510 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 (301) 763-5098 
 
 SHERMAN, John W., Ill 
 
 Chief, Spacecraft Oceanography Group 
 
 NOAA/NESS/S/REx3 
 
 WWB, Room 810 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 
 (301) 763-8087 
 
 SMALL, David E. 
 NOAA/NESS/S63 
 FB 4, Room 3010 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 (301) 763-5390 
 
 3. Conference Management 
 
 HRM, Inc. 
 
 1101 30th Street, N.W. 
 Washington, D.C. 20007 
 (202) 338-9071 
 
 THOMAS, Gary D. 
 President 
 
 DOUMANI, George A. 
 
 Vice President, Technology Transfer 
 
 BURKE, A. Maura 
 
 HABIB, Rhoda R. 
 Task Manager 
 
 HARRIS, Alma K. 
 
 HOOPER, Nancy J. 
 
 82 
 
APPENDIX B 
 CONFERENCE WORKSHEET AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
 
 1. Worksheet 
 
 The following Worksheet was used to facilitate discussion of the NOSS data requirements. 
 Other marine data users who did not attend the Conferences but would like to provide a similar 
 input, can duplicate this Worksheet and forward it to: 
 
 John W. Sherman, III 
 NOAA/NESS/SPOC Group 
 S/REx3, Room 810 WWB 
 Washington, D.C. 20233 
 
 2. Statistical Summary 
 
 The summary of the first 144 Worksheet responses is tabulated for anyone desiring to 
 perform additional analyses (Figures B-1. to B-3.). Results of such analyses would be appreciated 
 if mailed to the address cited above. 
 
 83 
 
safe 
 
 -'■k. tB Br ^Bi » 
 
 NOSS CONFERENCE WORKSHEET 
 
 WENT Of 
 
 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (OPTIONAL) 
 
 NAME 
 
 ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 ZIP 
 
 PHONE 
 
 Area Code ( 
 
 2. TYPE ORGANIZATION 
 
 L_J Government (federal, state or local) 
 D R&D 
 
 I I Engineering 
 
 I I Forecast/Prediction Services 
 
 I — I Petroleum related 
 
 I I Other (please specify) 
 
 Major responsibilities 
 
 The response to this worksheet represents: 
 
 I — I Individual professional judgment 
 
 I — I Agency/Organization position 
 
 I I Consortium position (If Consortium, please specify 
 
 type Consortium and identify if 
 members have responded in either 
 of the first two categories) 
 
 Type_ 
 
 Category 
 
 84 
 
 □ Other 
 
3. WHAT OCEANIC MEASUREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR ACTIVITY AND ON 
 WHAT GRID OR RESOLUTION? 
 
 
 Spatial 
 Grid 
 
 Temporal 
 Resolution 
 
 Wind velocity 
 
 
 
 Wave height/direction 
 
 
 
 Sea surface temperature 
 
 
 
 Sea ice measurement 
 
 
 
 Ocean current velocity 
 
 
 
 Chlorophyll 
 
 
 
 Diffuse attenuation coefficient/ 
 turbidity 
 
 
 
 Other 
 
 
 
 AFTER SATELLITE DATA ACQUISITION, DATA IS REQUIRED IN 
 
 I I Near-real time 
 
 ! — I within 3 hours 
 
 I 1 within 6 hours 
 
 I ! within 12 hours 
 I — I within 24 hours 
 
 I I 24 hours to 1 week 
 
 □ other 
 
 II Non-real time 
 
 I I 1 to 2 weeks 
 
 I I 2 to 4 weeks 
 
 I I 4 weeks or longer 
 Q other 
 
 5. 
 
 DATA IS REQUIRED OVER SCALES OF 
 
 ! I Local and coastal 
 J Regional 
 □ Global 
 
 (100's of kilometers) 
 (1,000's of kilometers) 
 (10,000's of kilometers) 
 
 Does your coverage vary or remain fixed? 
 "2 Varies Q Fixed 
 
 85 
 
6. DATA FROM NOSS MUST BE DISTRIBUTED TO USERS. HOW BEST SHOULD SUCH 
 COMMUNICATIONS BE ESTABLISHED? 
 
 LJ Dial-In Techniques (near-real time) 
 
 LJ Dial-In Techniques (non-real time) 
 
 jTj Computer-to-computer (near-real time) 
 
 Computer-to-computer (non-real time) 
 
 I | Telecopy /Wefax, etc. 
 
 Pj| CCTS (from archive) via mail 
 
 [" Photographic products via mail 
 
 [j Other/Comment 
 
 7. GEOPHYSICAL DATA WILL PROBABLY BE THE MOST COMMON FORM OF NOSS DATA. 
 
 HOWEVER, CALIBRATED, LOCATED, ENGINEERING DATA (LEVEL 1) WILL BE POTEN- 
 TIALLY AVAILABLE TO USERS. 
 
 Do you need these data in: (_J Near-real time I I Non-real time 
 
 Are the requirements for Level 1 the same as for questions 3, 4, and 5? 
 
 QYes Qno 
 If No, please comment on differences. 
 
 8. DOES NEAR-REAL TIME DATA/ ANALYSES NEED TO BE RECEIVED 
 
 Q Continuously as available; Q Only during normal working hours; 
 
 f"l Only intermittently on a task basis; jj ; Other 
 
 86 
 
9. IF POSSIBLE WOULD IT BE OF BENEFIT TO COMBINE NOSS GEOPHYSICAL MEASURE- 
 MENTS WITH OTHER GEOPHYSICAL DATA SOURCES FOR NON-REAL TIME DATA? 
 
 LJ Yes LjNo LJ No preference 
 
 The NOSS data distribution system will have the capability of producing 
 analyses of oceanic parameters from NOSS data merged with other analyses 
 Will you be accessing: 
 
 n NOSS data only 
 
 n NOSS and other data 
 
 □ Both 
 
 I | Other/Comment 
 
 10. HAVE YOU USED ANY DATA FROM GOES, TIROS-N/NOAA, GEOS-3, SEASAT OR NIMBUS-7 
 SATELLITES? 
 
 □ Yes □no 
 
 Would the availability of these data be useful? 
 
 □ Yes O No O Other /Comment 
 
 Would reprocessing of these data to the NOSS Formats be useful? (Note: 
 a time delay of a year or more may be required) 
 
 QYes Q No Q Other/Comment 
 
 87 
 
ARE YOU AWARE THAT CERTAIN DATA COSTS MAY BE BORNE BY YOU AS A USER 
 (TERMINAL INTERFACE, COMMUNICATION LINKS, ETC.)? 
 
 □ Yes □ No Qc 
 
 omment 
 
 For non-real time users current CCT's cost is about $60.00 and photographic 
 products vary according to type, size, etc. Do you find these costs a 
 reasonable basis for NOSS data charges?- 
 
 □ Yes CD No C] Comment 
 
 12. WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN PROVIDING INFORMATION- 
 EXTRACTION VALUE-ADDED SERVICES TO SATISFY YOUR CONTINUING INFORMATION 
 REQUIREMENTS? WHAT CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO TO ASSURE THE SUCCESS 
 OF THIS ROLE? 
 
 88 
 
13, a. DO YOU HAVE COMMENT ON HOW BEST TO CONTINUE A DIALOGUE BETWEEN NOAA/NOSS 
 AND USERS? 
 
 I I Publications, i.e. quarterly 
 ^] Workshops/Conferences 
 
 Presentations at professional/trade meetings 
 [_ Establish specific discipline groups 
 □ Other 
 
 b. Do you have any suggestions on how best to organize the interface between 
 private sector (academic and industrial) and NOAA? 
 
 14. OTHER COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, ISSUES 
 
 Conference Managers: 
 
 HRM, Inc. 
 
 1101 30th Street WW., Suite 301 
 
 Washington, D.C. 20007 
 
 (202) 338-9071 5/15/80 89 
 
3 
 Z 
 
 Ql4i 
 
 6£)^__i 
 
 
 
 oo u 
 
 « e o. ~i 
 c -h^* a nj 
 «l to vi 3 3 
 
 01 i/) OJ -D 
 
 c v a ,h h ►, 
 uaauoM>u 
 
 u h v h (i -h c 
 
 > 4 ttb uj; ^ u 
 
 o c o at w c oo 
 
 O KUU, B. O M< 
 
 a® 
 
 nil 
 
 i<J 
 
 m 
 
 a u 
 
 ui ai 
 ex 
 
 O u 
 
 oo 
 
 3 
 
 . • n oi id 
 
 in in h u u u 
 
 m t. x j: jz oj 
 
 x x x 
 
 IN *T ^ u 
 
 14 U (Q 
 
 • h « 
 
 ki M U rt -H 
 
 u 
 
 1 
 
 J3J3» ii 
 
 » 3 M U rt 
 
 9 «i a 
 
 <n •» X o 
 
 I I .» u o 
 
 HWA|0 J 
 
 B iH III 
 
 IS II "O 
 
 •H IX -H 01 
 
 00 U K 
 
 41 *H Oj -H 
 
 OS O > Pw. 
 
 c 
 - o 
 
 z Z z z. 
 
 u m s 
 a a o 
 
 OS t0 «J 
 
 o — o 
 
 II LOU 
 
 1HO, 
 « OX I 
 H OP, < 
 
 a i-i 
 
 u n 
 
 b cu 
 
 ki L. 
 
 Den 
 
 II o 41 o 
 
 z z >■ z 
 
 C 10 
 
 m ai k. 
 
 3 *J X 
 O u 
 
 3 -rt SO 
 
 C B C 
 
 ■rt C >rt M 
 "lit 
 
 C u U JZ 
 O C O u 
 
 u m s o 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 il 
 
 XIX 
 
 rH- 
 
 la 
 
 XX 
 
 <■ 
 
 a 
 
 U. 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 u 
 
 t% 
 
 it 
 
 a 
 
 l 
 
 C OJ 
 
 01 X 
 
 >~ ><u 
 
 01 «rt O 
 
 to C 
 
 0J O •« 
 
 H M 
 
 a io uj x oj 
 
 0} (/) to fcj x 
 
 oj o o o o o u 
 
 fc Z Z Z 7 , ID O 
 
 u 
 
 • e- 
 
 c o 
 o 
 
 •rt 41 
 
 u C 
 
 Cu iq -rt 
 
 O 4J r^ 
 
 u 
 
 «l 
 
 X 
 
 m 
 
 II 
 
 s 
 
 m 
 
 *U]t 
 
 11 
 
 JZ (0 JZ OT 
 
 ouowaiou oj o *j ^ 
 
 Z>"ZO>-20., >- SB O ft' 
 
 X 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 I. 
 
 11 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 H- 
 
 213 
 
 x -8 
 
 O u 
 Z o 
 
 ^ X 
 
 ^ in 
 
 fi> 
 
 B a u 
 
 W 41 U) X 
 
 O t- -rt " 
 
 3 a. aQ 
 
 UK 
 
 <<< 
 
 XI 
 
 z. 
 
 % 
 
 22 
 
 £2 
 
 £ 
 
 & 
 
 a 
 
 ak 
 
 I 
 
 si 
 
 IS 
 
 £2 
 
 z 
 
 J( 
 
 £2 
 
 x' 
 
 1 
 
 I. 
 
 * 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 a: 
 
 h( 
 
 I 
 
 R 
 
 a 
 
 & 
 
 i 
 
 VI 
 
 £ 
 
 M 
 
 I 
 
 Qifl 
 
 ItX 
 
 j: 
 
 at 
 
 
 M 
 
 1 
 
 Figure B-1. Tabulation of Commercial Users' Responses 
 
 90 
 
Figure B-2. Tabulation of Academic Users' Responses 
 
 91 
 
QJ 
 
 3 -H 
 
 *D iJ 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 ■ . >, u 
 
 ;>*ooot.u.c'aa> ex 
 
 o couwcooou 
 U awk a. o h< uo 
 
 i 
 
 • ■ ■ low. 
 
 • ■ w in w ^ ^; ui 
 
 VI U1 ^ U k 14 J )J( P 
 
 t-< t-< x X X U 3 01 
 
 xx x <n <r x 
 
 <^j <r -^ w i i <r u 
 
 m ^ hnm o Hfs ft|o 
 
 o t-t 
 
 u 
 
 J) -H V 
 
 > O U X 
 
 fH (fl -H 
 
 U > tn 
 
 M c ra c >, -h «j 
 aj o qj o a tg s 
 
 zz z z z o 
 
 a- a. 
 
 B 
 
 o o 
 
 <U LO «J 0i 
 
 H H O X 
 
 at o x u 
 
 H u d, o 
 
 mew 
 ai o <u o 
 z z >- z 
 
 t- X 
 O w 
 
 3 o 
 
 <U X 
 
 ^ Mi 
 
 II H O 
 
 ft. i~n co 
 
 to C/l 
 
 O O O 
 
 z 3; cq o 
 
 o <u o u a) o *j 
 z >« z c >< zo , 
 
 ii-i 
 
 
 T; w u c 
 
 " a a -h 
 
 ™ O U r-l 
 
 " x c a u 
 
 ^ _] in oj -h r 
 
 4) 2 Ji Ul u " 
 
 o u »o hw: 
 
 z o /}• 3 a, q Q 
 
 I_ 
 
 1 
 
 0Q 
 
 I. 
 
 1U 
 
 _I 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 zz 
 
 
 M 
 
 I_. 
 
 wt 
 
 I 
 
 X 
 
 £ 
 
 II 
 
 5" 
 
 Q 
 
 ao 
 
 IK 
 
 a 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 U 
 
 v 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 in 
 
 Ix 
 1 
 
 1L 
 
 x 
 
 a. 
 
 
 M 
 
 ra 
 
 X !X 
 
 w 
 
 ml 
 
 5 
 
 i/ 
 
 Ul 
 
 I 
 
 r 
 
 ak 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 t 
 
 £22 
 
 A 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 A 
 
 X 
 
 5 
 
 _o 
 
 35 
 
 * 
 
 X 
 
 A 
 
 £ 
 
 A 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 M 
 
 J 
 
 5- 
 
 X 
 
 A 
 
 I_U 
 
 5G> 
 
 A 
 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 X! 
 
 
 r 
 
 H. 
 
 l 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 ai 
 
 L 
 
 X.Jt 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 A 
 
 Aj_A 
 
 J_JL 
 
 ± X. 
 
 Figure B-3. Tabulation of Government Users' Responses 
 
 92 
 
rO 
 
 01 
 Ofl u 
 R CU 
 
 Ot W 01 TD 
 
 Em n) rH -h ;*, 
 
 Q R U O M > u 
 
 0> -ri 01 h 01 'H R 
 
 O R Ot *-» R 00 
 
 o»!whfcOH<; 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 O K 
 
 </) 01 
 
 R J= 
 
 O u 
 
 U O 
 
 * 
 
 I 
 
 • • . CO CO • 
 
 • • «i » • j: m ui 
 
 m i- j= j: j= 0) sol 
 
 IN >* «* u | | -t u 
 
 10 
 
 a 
 
 o ■-< 
 
 u eg 
 
 H O II tID 
 
 H ■rl^'H 01 
 
 U DO O b X 
 
 O tlH It -H 
 
 J « <J > li. 
 
 K 0) 
 
 u u 
 
 n> C 
 
 01 O 
 
 z z 
 
 . ~^ "^ 
 a a 
 
 e E r 
 
 o o 
 
 O (J I 
 
 I o J5 
 I B. O 
 
 U U 
 
 flj C W 
 
 01 o 01 O 
 
 z z >- z 
 
 3 u J= 
 
 O u 
 
 3 -H 00 
 
 r e c 
 
 ■H U -H M 
 
 •J 01 M OJ 
 
 R u Vj .C 
 
 O R O *J 
 
 O H U O 
 
 Ol o 
 
 C 01 
 
 01 .r 
 
 UH 
 "H R 
 0» O ^ 
 
 Q.IOUl£ V 
 (/I I/) *-» JS 
 
 O O O O u 
 
 z z z, <o o 
 
 h 3 
 
 01 O 01 O u 
 
 }j z >> z c 
 
 of/ 
 
 z 
 
 K l i xjr 1 k i 
 
 lit It l x F I 
 
 0^ 
 
 • L 4- 
 
 ZL I £x i jj ~xx 
 
 At I 1 1 I * 1 F XX 
 
 01 2 
 
 1 ! 
 
 KL 1 i 1 1 X ii 
 
 n i i x i t u i f io^ 
 
 H'f 
 
 I 
 
 K 1 mj( MIK 
 
 a i i n ^ i xi 
 
 4 S 
 
 V x^ 
 
 HZ _£ . J L -^ 
 
 & Ij i i -4- ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 oW 
 
 £ -t- 
 
 £ Z x j( r 
 
 l x x i n i Fi x a 
 
 o ^7 
 
 1 
 
 X; 1 11 liu 
 
 i iliiix^_^i 
 
 o f! 
 
 J i 
 
 F xl .xx xJ2 
 
 ji ii x L.i.i i x in * x 
 
 041 
 
 n_j_ 
 
 xuc J! ix ii I &I*ini 
 
 ni j i J 2;_i_i _i i F i* i 
 
 flfffl 
 
 j^i_l 
 
 Zjl jc i Jn I .ux 
 
 Mil x i x 1x1 x <j n 
 
 
 
 
 
 f)6l 
 
 x X 
 
 xj / n i i n 
 
 51 x g x X l K X 1 x x x 
 
 O^a 
 
 id 
 
 W t i T i Jt 
 
 xx if x i y y x x y x Z x x x y 
 
 o^ 2 . 
 
 K 
 
 \A v y / y x x 
 
 ij x _ i a y t/ Fr_^ a _ 
 
 o^ 
 
 y ■ 
 
 r u x z z_ 
 
 FI I L_ ■ i uj F_t _ffl 
 
 os-S" 
 
 % J. 
 
 4_ I II _jc X_ __] 
 
 y X X X X 1 I t X; r 
 
 
 
 
 
 p$t> 
 
 lijj. 
 
 i|_ ZJ i .u3 
 
 11 I t KJ r 
 
 Of 7 
 
 1 -i— 
 
 w t ' it t x ;n 
 
 _ii X < xi x j Jij hi x rxi x if 
 
 05R 
 
 TyJ 
 
 F i Ii i x i_ii 
 
 xy x i x x; x < x k : x x^xxi 
 
 D51 
 
 s 
 
 B K k t k untn 
 
 1 L ILLL. 1—8-1 * ^ J* f !^^ 
 
 01*0 
 
 a X 
 
 _5 Z i l i i I 
 
 li LjI-L. j .U < U L S—rX -A? 
 
 0k 1 
 
 r s 
 
 xx x * x y * x ' x x 
 
 i xxx v x Fx xx. x 
 
 o^ a 
 
 - 2 i- 
 
 W i t i i t 
 
 1 ix I x T x 1 
 
 0M 
 
 r^ 
 
 4. 2 17 jt I ""IS 1 
 
 nL J. J t.AA I i F x I 
 
 0&-4 
 
 SX 
 
 i]_ l i ii i t ii 
 
 1 Y x i Zx i I F j«xx 
 
 0GS 
 
 b "T 
 
 I%- i t t 1 i i x 
 
 2 X X X X 1 X X X JUK X 
 
 
 
 
 
 01/ (e 
 
 9 
 
 iF x i i x i xli] xjc 
 
 1 1 X x l i F ux. 
 
 o &i 
 
 yi i 
 
 Xj_ j( AX )f I 1 
 
 ill i ii i i ii x xx. xxxi^ 
 
 Ok? 
 
 M 
 
 lu i -£-i -iiO i ui x 
 
 lit l L 1 IA > 4_ 
 
 ft 61 
 
 Lx _! 
 
 il ix LiiA & k H 
 
 ix x x x x x x f ^ y ^ 
 
 <0 70 
 
 f _JX_ 
 
 XI ix x~ 1 1 
 
 * ii Z £ -i- Xl + 
 
 
 
 
 
 07/ 
 
 X 
 
 Zjl 1 i ii x i ii 
 
 ui x xi II x" il_x _£F x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 i i 
 
 
 
 
 i T 
 
 
 
 
 - - T;r r 
 
 
 
 
 — . — 
 
 
 \ 1 
 
 1 1 i 
 
 iii i ; , M! i '. 1 ! i .illil 
 
 I | r t | 
 j. i 1 1 1 1 ii ,1,1;! 1 i ... .l ..1 j — l_I 
 
 ■ I 
 
 1 t I I 11 l« IS 14 1* 11 H '0 
 
 ii I* \i i. *• »t •■ •> '♦ "| 
 
 O u 
 
 z o 
 
 fr3 
 
 c o 
 o 
 
 £ So 
 
 Figure B-3 (Cont'd). Tabulation of Government Users' Responses 
 
 93 
 
APPENDIX C 
 SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE DISCUSSION TRANSCRIPTS 
 
 Following summary presentations by the 
 group moderators, Conference participants had an 
 opportunity to ask questions or make any additional 
 comments concerning the day's activities and/or 
 the NOSS Program. Abridged transcripts of these 
 discussion sessions are presented here for each 
 Conference location. Concluding this Appendix 
 is a composite transcript of the Conference closing 
 comments. 
 
 Seattle 
 
 Chair: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 I'd just like to say from our 
 viewpoint that we've received a lot 
 of useful comments from this 
 Conference, and I thank you for all 
 of them. It has been most helpful. 
 One of the things that we do want 
 to discuss here is our continuing 
 interaction, or your views on how 
 to continue interaction with NOAA 
 people working on the NOSS 
 program. So I'll ask at this time 
 if anybody would like to comment 
 on that particular aspect, and if it 
 is something the staff can provide, 
 we'll designate someone to respond. 
 
 Certainly your holding of these 
 meetings is a grand first step. Now 
 if you can only find a way to 
 develop some kind of information 
 bulletin that will come back to those 
 of us who have participated in these 
 meetings in order to keep us 
 informed of developments. You've 
 got a long tough "row to hoe" and 
 you're going to make progress step 
 by step. If we know what you 
 have accomplished, it is going to 
 be a great help to us. 
 
 Comment: The comment came up with the 
 (Chair) operational users — the need for 
 
 some form of newsletter — and I 
 think that's something we'll certainly 
 take into consideration. We'll see 
 what we hear from all of the five 
 conferences but that would certainly 
 be one way of communicating. 
 However, that is only one-way 
 communication. The other thing 
 we want to do is to establish some 
 method of keeping up a dialogue 
 where we can get input on a regular 
 basis. As the system develops and 
 as we develop our NOAA Oceanic 
 Data System for processing and 
 disseminating the data, we'd also 
 like to get your comments as we 
 go along. As you can see from 
 the presentations that we have made 
 today, what we now have is a 
 concept of a NOAA system, and 
 thafs where we could use your input 
 and the inputs from the other 
 meetings to better define the 
 functions that will take place, how 
 they will take place, and how we 
 will best serve your needs. 
 
 Question: When will these future conferences 
 take place and where will they be 
 held? 
 
 Answer: Every year — to discuss the progress 
 
 and changes that occur as we go 
 along. 
 
 Comment: I don't know how expensive it is to 
 sponsor these conferences, but it 
 certainly is very useful as a way 
 to keep up with the situation and 
 also to get users' comments. 
 
 95 
 
Question: 
 
 Answer: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Question 
 
 <& 
 Comment: 
 
 What is the expected engineering 
 lifetime of the satellites? 
 
 We expect the instrument life to 
 be three years, so we are essentially 
 developing two complete spacecraft 
 to cover the five-year operational 
 demonstration period. 
 
 I might suggest a possibility. The 
 Oceans '80 Conference goes on 
 every year. This year there will 
 be two of them because the Marine 
 Technology Society (MTS) and 
 Oceans '80 meetings are separate, 
 but they will be going back together 
 in future years. We could fix it 
 up so you could have a one-day 
 symposium at that conference — 
 you could arrange a meeting for 
 the day before or after. That might 
 be one vehicle to get this 
 information out once a year. 
 
 This year the MTS will be having 
 a one-day session on Seasat, Nimbus 
 and the implications with regard to 
 NOSS. I have a feeling you won't 
 hear a whole lot new from what 
 you've heard here today, except for 
 in-depth technical discussions on 
 Seasat and Nimbus-7. The audience 
 will be somewhat different; larger 
 anyway. I have a question with 
 regard to travel. 
 
 I don't know what the travel 
 problems are for private industry if 
 we schedule conferences every year. 
 I expect we would probably drop 
 one and, instead of trying five, 
 probably go to four conferences. 
 We've had a lot of criticism from 
 people located in Washington, DC, 
 saying that we should have held one 
 of them there. We elected (this 
 
 year, anyway) not to have one there, 
 but the question remains: Is there 
 a problem for many of you in 
 getting to conferences if we do go 
 ahead with this conference approach 
 for keeping you informed and 
 maintaining this dialogue? I know 
 the situation with the government 
 people, but I'd just like to hear this 
 talked about. It may turn out to 
 be the cheapest way to do it. 
 
 Comment: Anything is going to cost us money. 
 
 Question: You're talking about having them 
 all in Washington, DC? 
 
 Answer: No. We'll probably drop one and 
 
 go to four, of which we might have 
 to have one in Washington now and 
 then. Washington, after all, is the 
 oceanographic capital of the world, 
 (laughter) 
 
 Comment: They are the most vocal, anyway. 
 
 Comment: Yes, that is one thing to consider. 
 A lot of them control the purse 
 strings, whether we like it or not. 
 
 Comment: Well, a combination of the 
 informational bulletins, supplemented 
 by conferences, seems reasonable. 
 Certainly if you get the 
 informational bulletins out and you 
 encourage responses the way you 
 have here with the questionnaire 
 type approach, you're going to cut 
 down on the need for the frequency 
 of the conferences. Mix them up; 
 use both. 
 
 Question: Did you get the same number of 
 conference attendees at each 
 meeting? 
 
 96 
 
Answer: No, they vary. We have had about 
 
 35 preregistered here; we now have 
 about 60 in La Jolla; around the 
 same number in Woods Hole; 12 in 
 Miami; and 105 in Bay St. Louis. 
 Bay St. Louis is kind of an anomaly, 
 like having a meeting in Washington, 
 DC The Navy people overran us 
 down there, which is fine. It's a 
 good thing that they are interested 
 enough to take time to come and 
 drink beer with us and give us an 
 audience. This (Seattle) meeting 
 falls in the middle attendance wise. 
 I think a handicap here was just 
 the nature of setting up the meeting 
 and coming here first. We might 
 not have allowed some people time 
 to respond. If we do it again, for 
 sure we'll try to set these 
 conferences up with a much longer 
 lead time. 
 
 Question: Regarding the proceedings, will you 
 
 comment on how and when they 
 will be distributed? 
 
 Answer: We will put out a report on this 
 
 meeting and everyone who is 
 registered will get a copy in the 
 mail. We're projecting it will take 
 something on the order of a month 
 to do an analysis of the 
 questionnaires and to come up with 
 some kind of a consistent means 
 of grouping the answers, not only 
 for what's happened here but for 
 the other four conferences. A draft 
 will be available, hopefully, early in 
 July. We will then allow about a 
 month for some sort of official 
 internal approval. It won't be to 
 screen the data; I don't think we 
 are planning to withhold any of the 
 evidence that comes up; that is not 
 the intent. We do have to have 
 a perspective from our management. 
 
 Hopefully, the final draft will be 
 out about the latter part of August. 
 I would urge you then, if you feel 
 you'd like to come in, to go through 
 the questionnaires yourself and do 
 your own analysis; we'd be glad to 
 work with you. We will use the 
 report as a means of continuing the 
 dialogue and maybe that (the 
 Conference Report) will be our first 
 installation of this newsletter-type 
 approach. 
 
 Question: I have one question that may have 
 been answered this morning and I 
 didn't hear it. I get the impression 
 that you are talking about sending 
 things you feel comfortable with up 
 in this satellite, and, since it's not 
 impossible to launch a satellite these 
 days, why is it six years "down the 
 pike" that you are talking about? 
 Is it a budgeting cycle? 
 
 Answer: No. By the time we start the 
 
 design, build the hardware, make all 
 the tests that they put the 
 instrumentation through — the 
 tremendous quality control that does 
 go into it where they do shake 
 tests, RFI tests, and compatibility 
 tests of one sensor at a time to 
 build up the configuration and make 
 sure the radio frequency interference 
 from, say, the scatterometer, is not 
 bleeding back on the radiometer - 
 - it takes a long tme. 
 
 Comment: It was mentioned this morning that 
 it takes six to seven years from 
 the conception of a satellite to 
 launch, and we are basing this on 
 experience. TIROS-N also had a 
 new data handling and processing 
 system, but at least we were 
 familiar with the data and we added 
 on to some of the system we 
 
 97 
 
Comment: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 already had. Here we are talking 
 about a more complex system with 
 NOSS, so that's the time it takes 
 just to go through the procurement 
 process. We're going through a 
 conceptual design for nine months, 
 with parallel contractors competing, 
 and this will be completed in 
 February, 1981. By the time you 
 go through the evaluation and 
 selection process it will be August 
 before you have even identified the 
 mission contractor who's going to 
 build the system, install it, and train 
 the people to operate it. We are, 
 hopefully,talking about having these 
 ground systems installed up to a 
 year before launch so that operators 
 can be hired and trained to operate 
 the system. So, when you put all 
 this together you have six or seven 
 years, although (I admit) it sounds 
 like a long time. We think that, 
 in a lot of our discussions within 
 the program, we are behind time 
 right now in some of the things we 
 are trying to do, so this is certainly 
 an average amount of time for 
 implementing a system of this 
 magnitude, based on our experience. 
 
 It is about the same amount of 
 time (needed) to build a Navy 
 weapon system. 
 
 There are a lot of things that must 
 go on. For example, when you are 
 flying strictly radiometer types of 
 instruments that don't radiate, that's 
 one thing. You're pretty much going 
 where you want and expect (them) 
 to go. But none of the frequencies 
 used on Seasat for research purposes 
 have international clearance to be 
 used operationally. So they are 
 having to go through a whole 
 hierarchy of things through the State 
 
 Department to get allocation 
 clearances to go with these things. 
 It is very time consuming. It takes 
 years. 
 
 La Jolla 
 
 (Transcript not available) 
 
 Woods Hole 
 
 Comment: LeveH and -II data can be made 
 available to both the Navy at 
 Monterey and NOAA in as real 
 time as we can get it — within 
 say 60 to 80 minutes after we've 
 received it and it has been properly 
 processed. Now at NOAA, we plan 
 to make the data available to 
 anybody that wants it, as soon as 
 we get it. 
 
 Question: You talked about getting LeveH 
 
 data available on the ship? 
 
 Answer: Probably LeveHI on the ship but 
 
 there are people who want Level- 
 I data. 
 
 Comment: They want the data to support a 
 mission that they are on. 
 
 Comment: We will be able to make LeveH 
 and -II data available within 80 
 minutes after it is received at the 
 primary center. 
 
 98 
 
Comment: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Question: 
 
 I think what they are doing is Answer: 
 
 expressing their concern ahead of 
 time due to past experiences with 
 data. 
 
 It's a valid concern because right 
 
 now we have the same thing in 
 
 the operational units — how are 
 
 people on ships going to get the Comment: 
 
 data? If we talk about making it 
 
 available to the guy at sea (which 
 
 is the issue), how is he going to 
 
 get it? 
 
 They are worried about this. How 
 long have people waited for CZCS 
 data? 
 
 Getting data to ships at sea is a 
 significant problem that we haven't 
 really addressed. Comment: 
 
 I think the other thing that was 
 
 stressed in the operational area, and 
 
 I'm not necessarily talking about 
 
 uniquely NOSS data either, is that 
 
 you may want data from ships, you 
 
 may want data from other sources 
 
 and satellites, and so on. So, we 
 
 also have to look at this as a NOAA 
 
 problem, not necessarily a NOSS 
 
 problem, but one which NOSS can 
 
 contribute toward solving. The 
 
 NOAA problem, even now without 
 
 NOSS, is that we can't get data 
 
 and, of course, NOSS is going to 
 
 add tremendously to the data that Comment: 
 
 is going to be available. I think 
 
 we have to look at it as a NOAA 
 
 problem. 
 
 Were any of the points brought up 
 in the R&D group discussions 
 indicative more of any industry 
 group, research group, etc.? 
 
 They were not addressed as either, 
 specifically. The group v/as 
 representative of both industry and 
 research, and the concerns were 
 expressed without attaching any 
 specific discipline or type of study 
 to it. 
 
 There is a sincere interest on the 
 part of NOAA to identify the 
 industry as such and their needs. 
 I'm curious to hear from industry 
 reps who are here. There were 
 several points made which I found 
 extremely interesting. I could 
 identify them all with various 
 research groups; but I don't know 
 if they are characteristics as well 
 of the potential industry units. 
 
 That point was also brought out in 
 the discussions about archiving data. 
 The request was made that people 
 say what they would like to have 
 kept, but I don't think anybody knows 
 what they will need five years from 
 now. Whatever you are throwing 
 away is precisely what you are going 
 to need later. You can't plan that 
 specifically, whether you're in 
 research or industry, this early in 
 the game. To get back to one 
 point, if they had more experience 
 with the current semi-available data, 
 they would be able to guess better. 
 
 I don't think there is a difference 
 between industry and research. You 
 seem to be separating them like 
 they are two different worlds. The 
 applications may be different, but 
 the concerns are the same. The 
 concerns for quality and timeliness 
 are the same. It's just the uses of 
 the data that may be different. 
 
 99 
 
Comment: 
 (Chair) 
 
 Question: 
 
 Answer: 
 (Chair) 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Question: 
 (Chair) 
 
 Answer: 
 
 Comment: 
 (Chair) 
 
 Nobody is trying to separate them. 
 
 The problem has been that nobody 
 
 could clearly say what the concerns 
 
 of industry are. Accordingly, it's Comment: 
 
 worth asking, and in that mode, 
 
 what specifically does industry feel, 
 
 so that we can clearly know that 
 
 we have heard from industry 
 
 representatives. 
 
 How do you define industry and 
 how do you define R&D? 
 
 That's not an easy one as you well 
 know. But in general, let me give 
 one type of definition. I think the 
 industry interests must lie in those 
 areas where they have a shooting 
 opportunity to produce something 
 unique and which they can sell 
 appropriately — in other words, 
 something in which they have some 
 sort of a proprietary lot. When I 
 talk R&D, it's probably an incorrect 
 version of it as far as you are 
 concerned. I'm only thinking about 
 those things that need to be done 
 and which serve the public good, 
 and accordingly, should not have a 
 proprietary lock on it. That's a bad 
 use of R&D, I agree. But in any 
 event, I look at industry as a group 
 of people who somehow want to 
 produce unique, salable products. Is 
 that wrong? 
 
 I think in the manufacturing industry 
 
 that's correct; but I think it is hard Comment: 
 
 to characterize all industry that way. 
 
 How would you do it? 
 
 I don't think you can separate 
 industry and R&D because there 
 are a fair number of industries that 
 
 do the R&D work — except for a 
 profit. 
 
 In the R&D group, and it was a 
 mixed group, there didn't seem to 
 be any differentiation of opinion at 
 all. 
 
 Back to that R&D thing. We have 
 a component of NOAA labelled 
 R&D, and that's my hangup! My 
 script says ferret out ideas about 
 how the oceanographic community 
 would like to stay involved with the 
 NOSS program development. A 
 darn good question! Let me just 
 make a few quick comments about 
 the New England area. We have 
 been concerned, as you have heard, 
 and we have produced a newsletter 
 that may be considered by some 
 as quasi-legal/illegal. I'm not sure 
 that we have a good notion yet of 
 the industry interests here. How 
 do we stay involved, generally? I 
 made the comment about the 
 newsletter being quasi-legal because 
 obviously, if we start sending out a 
 thousand copies of it, we have a 
 major problem with OMB. So, I 
 don't think we can expand that to 
 include everybody on the face of 
 the earth. But we have to look 
 at this question. How do we get 
 everybody appropriately involved? 
 Any ideas? 
 
 I think one good way to get people 
 involved is to make a suggestion in 
 our group. It's one thing to have 
 a NOSS users group and to look 
 six years down the road at what 
 people might need. I would like 
 to identify those people who have 
 a real interest in using the existing 
 data and to share experiences with 
 
 100 
 
the existing users of Seasat and 
 GOES data. I would suggest that 
 if the NOSS staff were to hold 
 another of these meetings, let's say 
 in six months or a year, that the 
 meeting be centered around people, 
 papers, and experiences that people 
 have had with the existing data. 
 I'm just finding it very difficult to 
 focus on lots of data that nobody 
 has really had experience with. My 
 suggestion would be not how we 
 relate to NOSS, but how the NOSS 
 staff would relate to us, and how 
 we could work with them; hopefully, 
 using the data and have another 
 conference of people who could 
 present ideas in actual practical 
 applications. 
 
 that the mailing list has grown to 
 
 200 people just in the New England 
 
 area), the amount and the diversity 
 
 13 
 of interest is incredible. So, 
 
 maybe following your suggestion, 
 
 within NOAA we should do our 
 
 best, too. I think all of us ought 
 
 to get together at a somewhat 
 
 higher level and address in different 
 
 regions of the country the kind of 
 
 things we can sponsor. In truth, 
 
 we are interested in NOSS, we're 
 
 interested in Landsat, we're 
 
 interested in more orbitors, we're 
 
 interested in all kinds of things, and 
 
 one needs to look at the full spread 
 
 of data that is available and what 
 
 the potentiality is. 
 
 Comment: This point has been raised in 
 
 (Chair) connection with romping around 
 
 looking at the regional needs, and 
 it was raised last Friday by Professor 
 Joe Berry of Yale. He would like Comment: 
 
 to convene some kind of a (Chair) 
 
 reasonable symposium with a strong 
 pragmatic vent to it, sometime next 
 fall, looking generally in his interest 
 now at terrestrial problems and 
 specifically at problems associated 
 with vegetation. The question he 
 was asking, in a way, was "Where 
 can I get funding to help out on 
 this?" He needs 10-20K. The Question: 
 
 second question he was asking was, 
 "Do you think the time has come 
 to go to the discipline route?" Now, 
 in a way that's part of what you're Answer: 
 
 saying. We've got to find some 
 different avenue of approach, a 
 different perspective. I'm a little 
 bit surprised, frankly, that this need 
 is here, although I've learned to 
 accept it. Since we started putting 
 the newsletter out (today I heard 
 
 Key Biscayne 
 
 I hope that, in filling out the 
 worksheets, the R&D group will 
 focus on specific R&D questions 
 rather than solely operational 
 approaches. We have concentrated 
 on data collection and we need to 
 extend efforts into using the data 
 in the user and operational 
 community. 
 
 At the end of three years, how do 
 we decide if the program has been 
 successful or not, and who is "we"? 
 
 We don't have a plan as to "how" 
 yet, though it will be a combination 
 of civilian and military users. The 
 three agencies involved will work 
 up an evaluation criteria ahead of 
 time. We are aware that we have 
 this ahead of us, and people are 
 working in this area now. (Note: 
 
 101 
 
The "we" as used here referred 
 explicitly to the tri-agency NOSS 
 program.) 
 
 Comment: Regarding the specific steps being 
 taken with algorithm development, 
 there needs to be a free flow of 
 information. Also, there needs to 
 be current data and better 
 documentation. Documentation 
 
 seems to be the key. 
 
 Comment: The National Weather Service has 
 13 people who extract information 
 and who may possibly provide 
 valuable feedback to NOSS, though 
 with a bias. 
 
 Comment: We have Levels-I thru -IV of data. 
 It may prove equally useful to 
 categorize users. 
 
 Comment: Out of this Conference there are 
 as many questions generated as 
 answers. It may be useful to have 
 another conference or series of 
 conferences where the questions are 
 presented ahead of time. Perhaps 
 a list of questions arising out of 
 this meeting may be compiled and 
 then answered at a subsequent 
 conference. 
 
 Comment: I see things more clearly now at 4 
 o'clock than I did at 9 o'clock this 
 morning. 
 
 Comment: We are aiming for September to 
 discuss what the NOAA Unique 
 System (now designated as the 
 NOAA Oceanic Data System) will 
 do. Before we can go out to 
 industry, however, we need to put 
 together an RFP. 
 
 Question: 
 
 Answer: 
 Comment: 
 
 Question: 
 Answer: 
 
 Comment: 
 
 Question: 
 
 Answer: 
 
 some input on what this source 
 evaluation material would be. 
 
 In the R&D meeting, was there any 
 discussion centering around synthetic 
 aperature radar systems? 
 
 It was not brought up in detail. 
 
 Not much is happening in this area. 
 Much of the phenomena which has 
 resulted from SAR was not 
 anticipated and, therefore, no ground 
 support was made available. SAR 
 is basically not being considered 
 because we don't have sufficient 
 justification on cost based on the 
 limited, known applications. 
 
 What is the current cost of NOSS? 
 
 $800 million for the 5-year period. 
 
 Bay St. Louis 
 
 The 2% research capability on NOSS 
 should be considered for improved 
 communications for medical reasons 
 (scuba divers, etc.). 
 
 Do we know the time delay between 
 direct readout level (DOMSAT) 
 versus LeveHI data from Navy or 
 NOAA processing facilities? 
 
 LeveHI data will be available by 
 NOAA-unique (now designated as 
 the NOAA Oceanic Data System) 
 as soon as it comes to us. Within 
 milliseconds of when data gets there, 
 it will be available. 
 
 Comment: It may be important to people 
 outside the government to have 
 
 Question: Will we have any impact on the 
 NOSS system? 
 
 102 
 
Answer: The system is capable of generating 
 
 many products, but it is important 
 to identify requirements so they can 
 be put into the system. Impact is 
 in the data area and what NOAA 
 will do with that data system. Up 
 to now, the system has been driven 
 by NOAA and Navy requirements. 
 
 Question: Two universities, Scripps and 
 University of Miami, have their own 
 receiving stations. What is the 
 NOAA position on encouraging or 
 discouraging these two groups? 
 
 Answer: If you are referring to direct 
 
 readout, there are no plans for direct 
 readout from NOSS spacecraft to 
 the civilian community. These data 
 are encrypted. (Note: However, 
 the civilian community, if 
 appropriate licensing is 
 obtained,should be able to read out 
 the LeveN and LeveMI data from 
 the NOSS Primary Processing 
 Facility via DOMSAT at the same 
 time that it is read out at the 
 DOC/NOAA User Processing Center 
 located at Suitland, Maryland. See 
 Figure III— 3.) 
 
 Question: Is there any possibility of getting a 
 NOSS system operating before mid 
 to late 1980's? 
 
 Answer: No. Not before 1986. It currently 
 
 takes 6 to 7 years to develop and 
 launch a satellite system. 
 
 Question: Are there plans to restudy or 
 revalidate the NOSS orbit, or is it 
 fixed? 
 
 Answer: The orbit is sun-synchronous. Only 
 
 the altitude is not fixed. 
 
 Composite Closing Comments 
 
 Hopefully, everybody is satisfied with the 
 meeting. We are not anxious to conclude this 
 discussion, but if you have specific comments 
 about how we might improve the nature, not 
 only of this Conference, but also those in the 
 other locations, we would like to hear them. It 
 was not clear to us that we necessarily should 
 have broken the topical groups into the 
 "Operational Users" and the "R&D Users," but it 
 was a convenience to us in order to stimulate 
 a dialogue through smaller group sessions. We 
 welcome that kind of feedback. 
 
 We will take the completed Worksheets, 
 analyze them and compile them into a report. 
 The time frame for the report is such that we 
 will have a closing on the initial Worksheet 
 responses on June 16. We will spend about two 
 weeks doing a fairly quick overview analysis of 
 those responses and try to establish the major 
 concerns and similarities between all topics. The 
 draft report will have to be reviewed by NOAA 
 Management, and then we will publish and 
 distribute copies of that report to you, hopefully 
 by Labor Day. We would like feedback on the 
 conference report. If you feel that we have 
 manipulated the responses in any way, we would 
 also like to know that. However, we have tried 
 to provide a fair appraisal of where NOAA stands, 
 what the appraisal is of the NOSS system and 
 the data sources for you. 
 
 It was suggested that maybe v/e should 
 have another conference in six months or so, if 
 I heard correctly. But suppose NOAA does take 
 it as an action and agrees to hold regional 
 conferences of some sort, how often should they 
 be? We could not meaningfully have them every 
 quarter. I don't know whether we could even 
 support them on a six month basis. It might 
 be the sort of thing we could schedule in with 
 other types of meetings, such as the annual 
 Marine Technology Society meetings. Perhaps 
 we could put in a day or so on the NOSS status 
 either before that meeting or afterwards. That 
 would minimize travel costs for a lot of the 
 
 103 
 
people, both the research group and the 
 commercial interests. We might approach 
 different communities in terms of professional 
 organizations. The Offshore Technology 
 Conference in Houston, for example, might be a 
 good way to deal with the petroleum and offshore 
 platform users. 
 
 NOAA wants to be a service agency for 
 you, and I do thank each of you for taking the 
 time out of your schedules to come and share 
 your requirements with us. Your comments and 
 requirements will mold the thinking of what goes 
 into the NOSS data distribution activity by NOAA, 
 which involves a continuing dialogue. 
 
 That is what we do want — a dialogue 
 and not a one-way street. I think the satellite 
 
 philosophy has changed. If you look at 
 meteorological systems, they have been basically 
 responsible to one customer— the National Weather 
 Service. The oceanic community is certainly far 
 more diverse and made up of many more different 
 groups, both in the government as well as in the 
 private sector, who require marine information. 
 We will do our best to work with you and satisfy 
 the maximum number of requirements. 
 
 In closing, I would like to especially thank 
 the Conference chairman for his time and support 
 and the moderators for facilitating the discussion 
 groups. I would also like to express our gratitude 
 to Human Resources Management for their efforts 
 in coordinating the logistics of the Conference. 
 Now, if there are no further comments, I will 
 declare the meeting adjourned. 
 
 13 
 
 This informational newsletter is not a formal 
 publication. It is designated as the "Northeast 
 Area Remote Sensing Notes" (NEARS) and is 
 available by contacting Mrs. Helen Mustafa, 
 c/o Northeast Fisheries Center; NMFS/NOAA; 
 Woods Hole, MA 02543. 
 
 104 
 
APPENDIX D 
 TEMPORAL RESOLUTION CONSTRAINTS OF POLAR ORBITING SATELLITES 
 
 Polar orbiting earth satellites have an 
 inherent capability to make global environmental 
 observations. The time required to achieve global 
 coverage depends primarily on the orbital altitude 
 and inclination and the swathwidth of the sensors 
 onboard the satellite. 
 
 This discussion is directed toward the 
 anticipated general characteristics of the satellite 
 component of the National Oceanic Satellite 
 System (NOSS). The final altitude has not been 
 selected, but it most probably will be between 
 600 to 900 km. Further, the NOSS orbit will 
 be sun-synchronous which fixes the orbital 
 inclination as shown in Figure D-1. For purposes 
 of illustration, the surface coverage omitted at 
 the earth poles is not considered, but for the 
 NOSS sensors operating between 600 to 900-km 
 altitude, this is only about 0.1 % or less, for each 
 instrument except the altimeter. The altimeter 
 misses as much as 1.2 % of the global area 
 located at the poles. 
 
 Because the inclination and altitude are 
 directly coupled for sun-synchronous orbits, their 
 effect is considered together as illustrated in 
 Figure D-1. It is possible to regard all satellite 
 orbits in terms of a ground trace repetition 
 parameter, Q, where Q = 360 / S; S being the 
 longitudinal separation in degrees of descending 
 (or ascending) equatorial crossings between two 
 successive satellite revolutions. S represents the 
 surface trace shift between orbits and is around 
 24° to 26° for 600 to 900-km orbits under 
 consideration. Thus, Q is typically around 2500 
 km separation for successive revolutions. 
 
 In general, Q can be expressed as an 
 integer and a rational fraction reduced to lowest 
 terms. Choosing Q to be an integer results in 
 a trace pattern which repeats itself every day. 
 Thus, for Q = 14 the orbit repeats itself every 
 day and the satellite nadir point trace at the 
 surface is the same every day. The altitude and 
 
 inclination for this orbit are 894 km and 99.97 , 
 respectively, as indicated by the upper scale in 
 Figure D-1. If Q is not an integer, then the 
 denominator of the fraction defines the number 
 of days it takes the ground trace to repeat itself 
 (cyclic frequency). Thus, there are a large number 
 of possible orbit repeat times between 600 to 
 900 km. For example, using Figure D-1 an orbit 
 at about 809-km altitude (14.25 = 14-1/4 
 orbits/day) repeats every 4 days, while an orbit 
 at about 726 km (14.5 = 14-1/2 orbits/day) repeats 
 every 2 days, so that there are certain altitudes 
 that provide "tuned" orbits that repeat often. 
 
 The cyclic frequency of the exact orbit 
 repetition, when coupled with the sensor 
 swathwidths at the surface, determines the 
 temporal coverage of the satellite system. The 
 NOSS LAMMR, CZCS and scatterometer have 
 essentially the same swathwidths of 1370, 1200, 
 1320 km, respectively. These swathwidths 
 essentially fill half the distance between successive 
 orbits (i.e., 2500 km between the orbits for the 
 altitudes being considered). Thus, the 14 or so 
 orbits which occur in a 24-hour period will acquire 
 data from about one-half the global area, and 
 hence, about two days are required to view the 
 entire globe. An exact two-day repeat (Q - 14- 
 1/2) would leave some areas always unobserved 
 by the 1200-km swathwidth of CZCS. The actual 
 build-up of surface coverage is illustrated in 
 Figures D-2, D-3 and D-4 for CZCS, LAMMR 
 and the scatterometer, respectively. For LAMMR 
 and CZCS 90 % global coverage, orbits between 
 700 to 800 km are somewhat better than all 
 others, requiring about 25 to 26 orbits. However, 
 the coverage is somewhat sensitive to the total 
 global fraction required, because if a 95 "^coverage 
 criteria is used, then the fastest coverage is 
 achieved by orbits between 700 to 750-km altitude. 
 
 The LAMMR and scatterometer 
 instruments, since neither depend on solar 
 illumination as does the CZCS, can use both 
 
 105 
 
0> 
 
 00 
 
 r- 
 
 & 
 
 m 
 
 «- 
 
 CO 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 N- 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 <£> 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 (/> 
 
 
 to 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 tc 
 
 4) 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 is 
 
 *- 
 
 
 4) 
 
 > 
 
 
 u. 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 01 
 
 o 
 
 oc 
 
 ID 
 
 rO 
 
 LJ 
 
 ro 
 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 
 2 
 
 0) 
 
 O 
 OJ 
 
 3 
 
 in 
 
 M 
 
 u 
 
 - o 
 
 3 
 01 
 
 Q3U3A00 V3HV 1V80n9 "IVNOIlDVdd 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 u 
 c 
 >- 
 
 l/l 
 
 I 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 £ 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 (0 
 
 _c 
 
 "o 
 
 c 
 
 ■D 
 
 c 
 
 IB 
 
 4) 
 
 X) 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 c 
 
 v . 
 
 Is 
 
 a 
 
 41 
 
 3 
 0) 
 
 w>i ni nsdo jo saniinv 
 
 106 
 
n — r 
 
 1 
 
 1 ' 1 I 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 CO 
 
 r~ 
 
 
 
 
 LlI 
 
 
 i 1 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 - 
 
 1 *> 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 \ & 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 ttV 
 
 
 
 Q_ 
 
 co 
 
 z 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 *e 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 *— ■ » 
 
 ii i 
 
 LU 
 
 ~ tt \ 
 
 £ 
 
 LlI 
 Q 
 
 O 
 CO 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 LlI 
 
 _l 
 
 
 
 K- 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 X 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 LlI 
 
 _ \v* 
 
 
 —1 
 
 z 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 "0L 
 
 - °./M^ 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 o/ 
 
 
 LU 
 
 < 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 (J 
 
 _i 
 
 
 h- 
 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 l i i 
 
 < 
 
 "-in, • 
 
 1 1 l~ ■" 
 
 CL 
 
 • 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 I s - 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 01 
 
 en 
 
 8 
 
 CO 
 
 1- 
 
 re 
 
 i_ 
 
 41 
 
 > 
 
 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 
 a: 
 
 re 
 
 01 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 re 
 
 *- 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 u. 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 lO 
 
 ce 
 
 Id 
 
 L 
 V 
 
 w 
 
 4) 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 01 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 fD 
 
 OJ 
 
 Z 
 
 to 
 
 _ o 
 
 <n oo h-. co. in *t to evi 
 Q3U3A00 V3UV "IVSCnO "WNOIlOVUd 
 
 - \ 
 
 i 
 
 1 1 
 
 NDING 
 
 1 
 Q 
 
 1 • "■■ 
 
 Q \ 
 
 
 
 LU 
 
 LU 
 
 
 - CO \ 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 Q 
 
 _ 
 
 O 
 
 ^^ 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 
 \ 
 
 v s 
 
 E 
 
 LU 
 Q CO 
 
 _l 
 O 
 
 
 \\ o 
 
 V 
 
 LU 
 
 Q 
 
 55co 
 
 32 
 
 X 
 
 LU 
 
 - 
 
 \\ o 
 
 
 3 
 
 0-^ 
 
 "co 
 
 
 Ay co 
 
 
 H 
 
 Q_ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 Q \ 
 
 to \ 
 
 b 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 to \ 
 
 < 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 1 o\ 
 o \ 
 
 
 z 
 
 LU 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 ll Ff \ 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 J" 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 ^^^ mmmm 
 
 
 o 
 I s - 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 O 
 
 lO 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 H 
 
 QL 
 O 
 
 ro B 
 
 O 
 CVJ 
 
 4) 
 
 3 
 
 CO % 
 
 01 
 
 I 
 Q 
 
 3 
 
 en i op I s -: cp in <t. io c\j 
 Q3U3AO0 V3UV nV8019 "WNOIlOVUd 
 
 107 
 
ascending and descending orbital passes. For 
 orbits in the 700 to 750-km altitude region, 90 
 % coverage is achieved in 17 and 26-30 orbits 
 for the LAM MR and scatterometer, respectively. 
 For 95 % coverage, 20 and 36 to 40 orbits are 
 needed for these two sensors, respectively. 
 
 The scatterometer swathwidth is not 
 contiguous across its 1320 km extent. The 320- 
 km "hole" below the spacecraft (see Appendix F) 
 requires additional orbits in order to obtain global 
 coverage. This makes the orbit sensitive to the 
 altitude primarily because if the orbit repeats 
 before the "hole" area is filled, that area is never 
 viewed by the scatterometer. At an altitude of 
 
 about 726 km (see Figure D-1) the orbit repeats 
 every two days, and while the outer edge of the 
 swathwidth of the scatterometer has achieved its 
 coverage (essentially the same as LAM MR), the 
 "hole" has not been filled. Thus, the general 
 characteristics shown in Figure D-4 are very orbit 
 specific. This is illustrated in Figure D-5 using 
 the 715-km orbital altitude which shows that as 
 the orbit approaches 726 km (Q = 14-1/2) the 
 "hole" is filled increasingly slower, with 60 orbits 
 required for even 95 % coverage, whereas 52 
 orbits yield 100 % global coverage at an altitude 
 of 700 km. Typically then, tuned orbits with 
 repeats of up to three days do not provide good 
 coverage with the scatterometer. 
 
 O 
 UJ 
 
 a: 
 
 UJ 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 or 
 < 
 
 < 
 go 
 
 3 
 
 e> 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 .8 
 
 20 
 
 ALTITUDE (km) 
 
 A DETAILED LOOK AT THE 
 [685, 715] ALTITUDE BAND 
 
 • ASCENDING AND DESCENDING PASSES 
 
 • POLAR "CAPS" EXCLUDED 
 
 30 40 
 
 NUMBER OF ORBITS 
 
 50 
 
 60 
 
 Figure D-5. 
 
 Scatterometer global area coverage at +15km 
 
 108 
 
 
An orbital altitude of about 700 km + 10 
 km appears to be the best overall compromise 
 for three of the four NOSS sensors. Specific 
 orbits at about 703 and 708 km have been noted 
 on Figure D-1 which will have repeats of 7 and 
 9 days, respectively. For the altimeter, these 
 two potential orbits will have nadir-point trace 
 separations at the equator of 1.77 and 2.75 if 
 both ascending and descending orbits are used, 
 respectively. This results in an altimeter grid 
 system of 177 km and 275 km for the 7- and 
 9-day repeat orbits, respectively. 
 
 To further illustrate the extreme sensitivity 
 of designing the 700-km altitude orbit to satisfy 
 various altimeter applications, consider that the 
 original Seasat baseline orbit was designed to 
 provide an 18-km grid at the equator. This 
 Seasat orbit repeated every 152 days. For the 
 NOSS altimeter, an 18-km grid at the equator 
 requires about 2000 orbits. An orbit with a Q 
 
 80 
 of 14-ttz satisfies this requirement, with 2026 
 
 orbits separated by 17.78 km at the equator. 
 
 The precise altitude of this orbit is 701.24 km. 
 
 In concluding this overview analysis of 
 orbital characteristics, it is important to note that 
 a tuned orbit of 1 or 2 days could be very useful 
 during the initial period of validation after the 
 launch of the NOSS spacecraft. An orbit at 
 about 726 km, illustrated in Figure D-1, is near 
 enough to the 700 km altitude so that a large 
 amount of energy does not have to be expended 
 to change orbits, and as noted above, it provides 
 a 2-day repeat cycle. This feature would allow 
 for ships and buoys to collect surface information 
 every 2 days for NOSS calibration, rather than 
 waiting 7 to 9 days. Hence, it has been proposed 
 that the NOSS orbital altitude initially be placed 
 at about 726 km for validation and subsequently 
 changed to 700 + 10 km. 
 
 109 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
 SENSOR DESCRIPTIONS FOR SEASAT AND NIMBUS-7 
 
 Introduction 
 
 The five principal oceanic sensors carried 
 on Seasat and Nimbus-7 have been briefly 
 discussed in Chapter II, Section 4. Details are 
 provided here on the coverage and characteristics 
 of the Seasat radar Altimeter (ALT), 
 scatterometer (SASS), Scanning Multi-channel 
 Microwave Radiometer (SMMR), and synthetic 
 aperture radar (SAR), and the Nimbus-7 SMMR 
 (identical to Seasat) and Coastal Zone Color 
 Scanner (CZCS). 
 
 The foot print comparison of all Seasat 
 sensors is given in Figure E-1. 
 
 Radar Altimeter (ALT) 
 
 The altimeter was a nadir-viewing, short- 
 pulse, 3 ns radar operating at 13.5 GHz. This 
 instrument measured the vertical distance from 
 the spacecraft to the ocean surface along the 
 sub-satellite trace with an accuracy of + 10 cm 
 rms. Global coverage required 152 days. The 
 data obtained provides the sea surface geoid and 
 allows mapping of prominent surface depressions, 
 such as deep ocean trenches. Elevations resulting 
 from seamounts, plateaus and ridges, and heights 
 associated with geostrophic currents are also 
 detected. Figure E-2 cites the instrument 
 specifics. 
 
 Seasat Scatterometer System (SASS) 
 
 The scatterometer was a dual-polarized 
 system operating at 14.59 GHz. The antenna 
 radiated four fan beams (tv/o orthogonal pairs) 
 which point + 45 deg and _+ 135 deg relative to 
 the direction of flight. These beams illuminated 
 the ocean surface for a distance of 1000 km on 
 either side of the sub-satellite track. Spatial 
 resolution elements, 50 x 50 km, were produced 
 by range gating and the use of fifteen doppler 
 filters along each fan beam as shown in Figure 
 E-3. The resolution cells from the fore and aft 
 
 beams produced nearly overlapping orthogonal pairs 
 with incident angles almost equal. 
 
 Scanning Multi-channel Microwave Radiometer 
 (SMMR) 
 
 The Scanning Multi-channel Microwave 
 Radiometer (SMMR) was a dual-polarized 
 radiometer that measured microwave radiation at 
 five frequencies: 6.63, 10.69, 18, 21, and 37 
 GHz. This instrument generated a conical scan 
 to the right of the sub-satellite track at an 
 incident angle of about 50 deg. It recorded data 
 in a swath 659 km-wide for a series of elliptically 
 shaped cells of varying sizes, depending on 
 frequency as shown earlier in Figure E-1. The 
 major axis of these elliptical cells varied from 
 121 km at 6.63 GHz, to 21 km at 37 GHz. 
 
 The use of five frequencies permitted the 
 radiometer to serve as an intermediate-to-high 
 speed windfield anemometer (no wind direction), 
 to measure sea surface temperature, to estimate 
 corrections for atmospheric water vapor and liquid 
 water, and to monitor sea ice conditions. 
 Additional characteristics are given in Figure E- 
 4. 
 
 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) 
 
 The Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) was 
 an L-band 1.27 GHz radar with excellent cloud 
 and rain penetration capability. The antenna 
 illuminated a swath 100 km-wide to the right of 
 the flight track. The design provided spatial 
 resolution of 25 m in both range and azimuth. 
 Figure E-5 shows the principles of surface element 
 resolution. Range resolution was determined by 
 the effective radar pulse length; azimuthal or 
 cross-range resolution was determined by the 
 antenna beamwidth. 
 
 The image was formed from two bands 
 of information. Range information was derived 
 from the roundtrip travel time of radar echoes 
 
 111 
 
o 
 
 ?.E* 
 
 or 
 
 UJ 
 
 ^ X 
 
 I 
 
 ^ X 
 
 <t X or 
 
 u 
 
 
 -* 5 
 
 •1 CD 
 
 •Jt 
 
 UJ 
 
 z 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 L/"> 
 
 LU 
 
 UJ 2 
 
 1- ^ 
 
 or 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 "■ u_ 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 o 
 
 li- 
 ck: 
 
 U- 
 
 o 
 
 x-? 
 
 u_ 1^1 
 o 
 
 o 
 E Z 
 u o 
 
 *Z r*"\ 
 
 or - 
 
 or 
 
 ID 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 U 
 
 LU 
 
 UJ 
 
 o W 
 
 UJ 
 
 <-J T 
 
 LO 
 < 
 
 
 o 
 
 CC 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 
 id 
 
 
 < or 
 
 
 
 
 Q_ 
 
 .z y 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 *- Z 
 
 5^ 
 
 or 
 
 
 
 
 I o 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 t UJ 
 
 S£ 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 a: < 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 uj *— 
 
 — ' or 
 So 
 
 
 
 
 iy* 
 
 O uj 
 i_ or 
 
 ££ 
 
 CD 
 
 
 to 
 
 i 
 
 = CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 a. " 
 
 <J t— i 
 
 
 CD 
 TO 
 
 
 
 
 mJ 
 
 
 ■■■■ 
 
 a> —. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <. 
 
 
 I— 
 
 i. ' 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 co 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 -J TD i 
 I -o w 
 
 
 
 
 K- 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 
 wl 
 
 
 ex. 
 
 O 
 
 
 3 ■ 2 
 
 UJ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 1- 
 
 — 1 
 < Q- 
 
 CD 
 
 OMATIC. 01 
 CKSCATTER 
 YNAMIC RA 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 i — 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 (V 
 
 z s. 
 
 O UJ 
 
 — t— 
 
 UJ 
 
 2 "1 
 
 
 or 
 or 
 
 UJ 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 INI 
 
 a: 
 
 3 
 
 uj lu rr 
 t— t— 32 
 
 L 
 re 
 
 E 
 
 < 
 
 2o 
 
 O 
 
 •- S <=> 
 
 CL 
 
 or 
 
 UJ 
 
 a. 
 
 a. 
 
 or ce (^ 
 
 X 
 
 </i s 
 
 LU 
 
 , o > 
 
 UJ 
 
 H 
 
 
 t— i— 
 
 E 
 3 
 in 
 
 U 
 
 5£ 
 
 LU 
 
 <t 
 
 z or uj uj 
 — uj o o 
 
 UJ 
 
 5 
 
 ir 
 
 UJ 
 
 1— 
 
 Q O X 
 
 o 
 
 
 o >- 
 
 Ml 
 
 <; > uj 
 
 UJ 
 
 «=? 
 
 t_) ^ UJ 
 
 
 _j 
 
 <r i/i 
 
 or 
 
 o <: or 
 
 
 <r 
 
 < 
 
 i/»ui5 
 
 3 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 u 
 
 X 
 
 fst 
 
 „ 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 u^ 
 
 L 
 
 u 
 
 5 
 
 r*"\ 
 
 
 cp 
 
 
 ^«: 
 
 od 
 
 0) 
 
 <-> 
 
 UJ 
 
 l— 
 
 
 r«~\ 
 
 
 S 
 
 c: 
 
 I 
 
 or 3 
 
 E 
 
 
 rsi 
 
 UJ 
 
 *" o 
 
 
 **> 
 
 OC 
 
 §2 
 
 +* 
 
 
 O 
 r« X 
 
 <: 
 
 o 
 
 o "2 — 
 
 ns2 
 
 rj 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 or 
 o_ 
 
 X 
 1— 
 (3 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 Cut 
 
 /sec 
 TTED P 
 NPUT - 
 
 < 
 
 
 1 o 
 
 
 r^. LO 
 
 o l/i 
 
 1— 
 
 LU 
 
 LU 
 
 t 
 
 UJ s 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 s 
 
 WIDTH 
 RATE - 1 
 COMPRE 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 —1 
 
 —i 
 
 s 
 
 O- <. * 
 
 CM 
 
 
 81 
 
 t— 
 *— 
 
 a. 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 or 
 
 1030 
 GE TR 
 GE PC 
 
 1 
 UJ 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 I/O 
 
 ■ ■ t n iii 
 
 
 
 
 , <t <; 
 
 3 
 
 
 o§ 
 
 -^ 
 
 i/> a i/i 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 or or 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 <r 
 
 U. UJ UJ 
 
 
 or < 
 
 
 => x zd 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 or > > 
 
 0. 
 
 
 u. co 
 
 * — 
 
 Q- (_> O- 
 
 J— 
 
 LU 
 
 a. 
 
 o. < < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u. 
 
 E 
 
 O 
 CM 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 or: 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 LU 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1/) 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 U 
 
 0£ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 UJ 
 
 7 
 
 o 
 
 or 
 
 
 
 Z u 
 
 u_ 
 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 m 
 
 r 
 
 » 
 
 = O c-> 
 
 
 • 
 
 U 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 U — 
 
 o 
 
 
 — 
 
 r 4 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 St °« 
 
 o- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ro o 
 
 UJ 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 no r^ 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — CSI 
 
 i - 
 
 D 
 
 _J 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 «n ro o 
 
 Of 
 
 u 
 
 
 o 
 
 •«t 
 
 o 
 
 rsi 
 
 -no. 
 
 f— 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CM 
 
 ro — 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 UJ 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 in 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 00 
 CO 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 • 
 
 K 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 &■ - 
 
 s 
 
 : r>J •— 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 MMR 4 
 IRR 5 
 
 
 
 h- 
 
 or 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 _J 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 co ;> 
 
 V 
 0) 
 re 
 
 L 
 
 > 
 8 
 
 *j 
 
 c 
 « 
 
 E 
 
 3 
 
 L 
 ♦J 
 (A 
 
 c 
 < 
 
 re 
 wi 
 re 
 ai 
 in 
 
 i 
 
 LU 
 
 « 
 
 L 
 
 3 
 0) 
 
 112 
 
PERFORMANCE 
 
 • MEASUREMENT INTEGRATION - 1.89 sec 
 
 • MAXIMUM 8IAS ERRORS - 2 dB 
 
 • SYSTEM CALIBRATION 10.2 dB 
 
 • OCEAN SURFACE WIND SPEED - 4 TO >28 m/sec 
 i2 m-'sec OR 10% WHICHEVER IS GREATER 
 
 • OCEAN SURFACE WIND DIRECTION - 0-300 -20 
 
 • SWATH - AS SHOWN IN COVERAGE FIGURE 
 
 • CELL RESOLUTION - 50 km 
 
 • CELL GRID SPACING - 50 km x 50 km 
 
 DOPPLER CELLS 
 
 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 EARTH COVERAGE DOPPLER CELLS 
 TYPICAL EACH ANTENNA FOOTPRINT' 
 
 SATEllITI 
 
 GROUND TRACK 
 
 AFT BEAM 
 
 "t. -FORWARD 
 
 r 4 1 BEAM 
 
 
 -K 
 
 ISO km- 
 
 - 140 km 
 NEAR NADIR SURFACE 
 MEASUREMENT SWATH 
 
 • BACKSCATTER/ 
 RECEIVED SIGNAL 
 
 BACKSCATTER. dB RECEIVED SIGNAL. dBm 
 
 WIND 
 
 ANGLE, deq 
 
 m/sec 
 
 25 
 
 55 
 
 
 4 
 
 -16 
 
 -28 
 
 
 25 
 
 -4 
 
 -13 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 -7 
 
 
 WIND 
 
 ANGLE, deq 
 
 m/sec 
 
 25 
 
 55 
 
 4 
 
 -138 
 
 -143 
 
 25 
 
 -126 
 
 -128 
 
 48 
 
 -122 
 
 -122 
 
 EXTRAPOLATED FROM LOWER 
 WIND SPEED DATA 
 
 • FREQUENCY - 14. 59927 GHz 
 
 • BANDWIDTH - ±500 kHz 
 
 • TRANSMIT TIME/TOTAL TIME - 0.2 
 
 • PULSE WIDTH - 4.8 msec 
 
 • PEAK TRANSMITTED POWER - 110 W 
 
 • PRF - 34 PULSES/sec 
 
 • AVERAGE TRANSMITTED POWER - 20 W 
 
 • AVERAGE RAW POWER - 80 W REGULATED 
 
 - 85 W UNREGULATED 
 
 • RECEIVER NOISE TEMP 1250° K 
 
 • GAIN CONTROL - AUTOMATIC 
 
 • ANTENNA PEAK GAIN - 32.5 dB 
 
 • ANTENNA POLARIZATION - HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL 
 
 • DATA RATE - 540 Dps 
 
 Figure E-3. 
 
 SASS technical summary 
 
 113 
 

 PERFORMANCE 
 
 • OCEAN SURFACE WIND SPEED FROM 7 m TO 50 m/sec ±2 m/sec OR ±10%. 
 WHICHEVER IS GREATER 
 
 • OCEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE TO WITHIN *2°C ABSOLUTE AND ±0.5 J C 
 REATIVE 
 
 • WIND AND TEMPERATURE RESOLUTION - 121 km 
 
 • ICE FIELD MAPS. RESOLUTION - 21 km 
 
 • MEASUREMENT OF INTEGRATED ATMOSPHERIC WATER VAPOR AND LIQUID 
 MATTER IN A COLUMN ALONG THE SIGNAL VECTOR 
 
 • MEASUREMENT OF RAINDROP SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION IN A COLUMN 
 ALONG THE SIGNAL VECTOR 
 
 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 • CLOCK INPUTS - 1 Hz. 10 kHz. 1.6 MHz. SATELLITE TIME 
 
 • ENG AND SCI DATA RATE - 2 kbps 
 
 • WEIGHT - 53 kq 
 
 • PRIME POWER - 61 W (AVERAGE) 
 
 • FREQUENCY. GHz 
 
 • ANTENNA DIAMETER, m 
 
 • ANTENNA BEAMWIDTH. HALF-POWER, deq 
 
 • POLARIZATION 
 
 • FOOTPRINT / MAJOR AXIS \ 
 DIMENSIONS \MINOR AXIS/ ' 
 
 km 
 
 FULL SWATH ANGLE, deq 
 
 SWATH ARC WIDTH, km 
 
 INCIDENCE ANGLE OF BEAM CLNTEK AT 
 SURFACE, deq 
 
 6.63 10.69 
 
 4.2 
 
 121 
 79 
 
 21 
 
 18 
 
 — 0.79 
 
 2.6 1.6 1.4 
 DUAL LINEAR- 
 
 37 
 
 0.8 
 
 74 
 49 
 
 44 
 29 
 
 -50- 
 
 -659- 
 
 -48.8 
 
 38 
 25 
 
 21 
 
 14 
 
 • ORBITAL ALTITUDE, km 
 
 • RF BANDWIDTH. MHz 
 
 • DISSIPATIVE LOSSES: 
 
 /ORTHOMODE TRANSDUCER 
 
 I WAVEGUIDES 
 
 V SWITCHES AND ISOLATOR 
 
 dB 
 
 TOTAL DISSIPATIVE LOSSES. dB 
 NOISE FIGURE (MIXER + IF AMPI, DSB. dB 
 
 • SYSTEM NOISE 
 TEMPERATURE 
 
 REFERRED TO PORT 
 'OF MODULATOR 
 
 ), DSB, 
 
 • PREDETECTION BAM)WIDTH. MHz 
 
 • INTEGRATION TIME CONSTANT, milliseconds 
 
 • TEMPERATURE RESOLUTION, K (1 (TH300K TARGET . 
 
 • ABSaUTE TEMPERATURE ACCURACY. K (lorl 
 
 • DYNAMIC TEMPERATURE RANGE. K 
 
 m 
 
 
 -794- 
 
 
 
 
 
 C>U 
 
 
 
 0.55 
 
 0.37 
 
 0.52 
 
 1.03 
 
 0.3 
 
 0.25 
 
 0.34 
 
 0.25 
 
 0.2 
 
 0.2 
 
 0.6 
 
 0.6 
 
 0.6 
 
 0.7 
 
 0.7 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.21 
 
 1.37 
 
 1.93 
 
 1.2 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 490 
 
 490 
 
 692 
 
 703 
 
 728 
 
 
 
 1UU 
 
 
 
 126 
 
 62 
 
 62 
 
 62 
 
 30 
 
 0.51 
 
 0.72 
 
 0.89 
 — 2 — 
 
 1.01 
 
 1.23 
 
 10-330- 
 
 Figure E-4. 
 
 SMMR technical summary 
 
 PERFORMANCE 
 
 • RADAR IMAGES AND INTENSITY SPECTRA OF /.AVES IN DEEP OCEAN AND 
 MEAR COASTS 
 
 • RADAR IMAGES OF SEA ICE AND C RESHWATER ICE 
 
 • RADAR IMAGES OF LAND AND SNOV.COVER 
 
 • 100 kn Sv'.ATH \\ IDTH. 4000 kn SiVATH LENGTH IN 10 mm PASS 
 
 • FOUR INDEPENDENT CELL MEASUREMENTS 14 LOOKS ' 
 
 • 25 x 25 m CELL RESOLUTION i4 LOOKS i 
 
 • 0.5 sec INTEGRATION TIME PER CELL MEASUREMENT I PER LOOK i 
 
 • CELL SNR OF >5 dB OVER 100 km SWATH (4 LOOKS i 
 
 RESOLUTION CELLS 
 
 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 SAT 
 
 : liGHT 
 
 f t 
 
 I I 
 
 230 km 330 , 
 
 I FROM NADIR : 
 
 tfl 
 
 , ! i 
 
 4000 km 17 deq 23 deq 
 
 ^ R FROM NADIR 
 
 10 mm 
 
 PASS 
 
 100 km SiVATH 
 
 •25 m x 25 m 
 RESOLUTION 
 CELLS 
 
 • CENTER FREQUENCY - 1274.8 GHz 
 
 • BANDWIDTH - 19 MHZ 
 
 • TRANSMIT TIME 'TOTAL TIME = 0.35 
 
 • PULSE WIDTH - 33.8^sec 
 
 • CHIRP RATE - 0.562 MHz'usec 
 
 • PULSE COMPRESSION RATIO (TIME 
 BANDWIDTH PRODUCT) - 642 
 
 • EFFECTIVE PULSE WIDTH - 53 nsec 
 
 • PEAK TRANSMITTED POWER - 1125 W NOM 
 
 • PRF's - 1464, 1540, 1580. 1647 Pulses/sec 
 
 • AVERAGE TRANSMITTED POWER - 55 W 
 
 Figure E-5. SAR technical summary 
 
 114 
 
from the surface target* Azimuth information 
 was composed of the doppler shift history in the 
 reflected signal from the surface in the direction 
 of spacecraft motion. This information formed 
 lines of constant doppler shift in the azimuth or 
 cross-range direction. The intersection of the 
 two bands of information yielded the surface 
 elements shown. 
 
 Prime applications of the data are for 
 wave directional spectra, coastal wave refraction 
 analysis, and sea and lake ice dynamics. Because 
 of the very high data rate (120 x 10 b/s), there 
 was no onboard recording of data. As a 
 
 consequence, earth coverage was limited to swaths 
 approximately 4000-km long in regions adjacent 
 to the five ground receiving stations. No SAR 
 is scheduled to fly on NOSS. 
 
 Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) 
 
 The CZCS is an image scanner with six 
 co-registered bands spectrally centered at 443, 
 520, 550, 670, 750 and 1150 nm (Figure E-6). 
 The instrument utilizes a fully rotating scanner 
 which scans across track at a rate of 8.0808 
 rev/sec. The Instantaneous Field-of-View (IFOV) 
 
 Performance 
 Parameters 
 
 Channels 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 Scientific Observation 
 
 Chlorophyll 
 Absorption 
 
 Chlorophyll 
 Correlation 
 
 Yellow 
 Stuff 
 
 Chlorophyll 
 Absorption 
 
 Surface 
 Vegetation 
 
 Surface 
 Temperature 
 
 Center Wavelength 
 ( A Nanometers) 
 
 443 
 (blue) 
 
 520 
 (green) 
 
 550 
 (yellow) 
 
 670 
 (red) 
 
 750 
 (far red) 
 
 1150 
 (infrared) 
 
 Spectral Bandwidth 
 (A A Nanometers) 
 
 433 - 453 
 
 510 - 530 
 
 540 - 560 
 
 660 - 680 
 
 700 - 800 
 
 1050 - 1250 
 
 Instantaneous Field 
 of View (IFOV) 
 
 
 
 . 865 x . 865 Milliradians 
 (. 825 x . 825 km at sea level) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Co-registration 
 at NADIR 
 
 
 
 < 0. 15 Milliradians 
 
 
 
 Accuracy of Viewing 
 Position Information 
 at NADIR 
 
 
 
 < 2.0 Milliradians 
 
 • 
 
 
 Signal to Noise 
 Ratio (min. ) at 
 Radiance Input 
 N<(mW/cm . STER . Urn) 
 
 > 150 | 
 
 at 
 5.41 
 
 >140 
 at 
 3.50 
 
 >125 
 at 
 2.86 
 
 >100 
 at 
 1.34 
 
 100 
 at 
 10.8 
 
 NETD of 
 0. 220" k 
 
 at 
 
 270° k 
 
 Consecutive 
 Scan Overlap 
 
 
 
 25T 
 
 
 
 Modulation Transfer 
 Function (MTF) 
 
 1 a 
 
 1 150 km target 
 
 size, 0.35 min. at 0.825 km 1 
 
 arget size 
 
 
 Figure E-6. 
 
 CZCS technical summary 
 
 115 
 
is 0.05 deg, equating to a sea level square of 
 825 m on a side from the nominal orbital altitude 
 of 955 km (Figure E-7). The active portion of 
 the scan is 78.7 deg which produces a cross track 
 swath of 1566 km. The scan rate and IFOV 
 size are such that each swath overlaps the 
 preceding swath by about 25 % . 
 
 The scanner mirror is capable of being 
 tilted forward or backward +20 deg line of sight 
 about the spacecraft pitch axis in 2.0 deg 
 increments. This movement is commandable and 
 is used to avoid sun glint while taking advantage 
 of maximum solar elevation angles. 
 
 a =1.374 RADS (78.72°) 
 
 -3 
 
 0=0. 865x10 RADS (.0496°) 
 
 d = 0. 825 km 
 
 orbital altitude = 955 km 
 
 Ma/- /T 
 
 D = 1566 km 
 
 Figure E-7. CZCS geometry 
 
 116 
 
APPENDIX F 
 NOSS BASELINE SENSOR DESCRIPTIONS 
 
 The characteristics of the four primary NOSS instruments determine, to a large 
 extent, the design characteristics of their respective algorithms. Since the design of the 
 hardware proceeds in parallel with the development of the algorithms, baseline instrument 
 characteristics must be assumed for purposes of algorithm development. The assumed 
 baseline descriptions which have been agreed to by NOSS Project Management are 
 presented in Figures F-1 through F-4. The algorithm descriptions in this plan are based 
 on these characteristics. Should subsequent instrument re-design change this information, 
 the algorithm descriptions will be corrected in the next revision to this plan. 
 
 RESOLUTION 791 
 
 S/N ICALC I 
 180" SOIAR ZENITH! 
 
 10.6-1J.5 «b NITD - 0.1 K AT rro K 
 
 PERFORMANCE 
 
 . ORBITAL ALTITUDE 
 
 . WEIGHT 
 
 . DIMENSIONS 
 
 . POWER 
 
 . SCAN RATE 
 
 • DATA SCAN 
 
 . SCAN TILT ALONG TRACK 
 
 . PIXEL SAMPLED PER SCAN 
 IEACH CHANNEll 
 
 . CLOCK FREO 
 
 < PHYTOPLANkTON PIGMENT CONCENTRATIONS TO WITHIN A FACTOR Of 2 
 
 • DIFFUSE ATTENUATION COEFFICIENT [k] WITHIN A FACTOR OF 2 
 
 "SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ACCURATE TO APPROXIMATELY « 2.0"C 
 <0.2°C RELATIVE SENSITIVITY) 
 
 "RESOLUTION - APPROXIMATELY 800m 
 
 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 -28 V « 0.3 V 
 
 700 k 
 
 44kgm 
 
 85. 4 . 40 9. 55.6cm 3 
 
 60. 2W <AVGl. 85V/ iPEAKI 
 
 8.52 Hz 510 rpml 
 
 : 40° CROSS TRACK 
 
 • 20° IN 2° INCREMENTS: FULL EXCL RSION 
 EXECUTEDIN<1 min(i.e.-20°TO -20°' 
 
 1390 
 
 1 . 705 MHl 
 
 . IFOV 
 
 . FOOTPRINT CONTIGUOUS AT NADIR 
 
 . COOLER FIELD-OF-VIEVV 
 
 . MAXIMUM DATA RATE 
 
 . SUFFERED DATA RATE 
 
 . SAMPLING RATE 11.12 IFOVi 
 
 . SAMPLING RESOLUTION I DIGITIZATION! 
 
 • DIAMETER OF OPTICAL APERTURE 
 
 1.13 m.od 'VISHLE AND IRI 
 
 798 m 
 
 101° SOLID ANGLE 
 
 4.8. IO*b/> 
 
 1.13 « l0 6 b/< 
 
 53.3 SAMPLES/SECOND 
 
 10 BITS (PER CHANNEll 
 
 17.8 cm 
 
 Figure F-1, 
 
 CZCS II baseline description 
 
 117 
 
PERFORMANCE 
 
 i SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ACCURATE TO WITHIN * I 5 K AT 25 km RESOLUTION 
 
 i WIND SPEED 0-50 m i, ACCURATE TO WITHIN i 1 • , OI 10%, WHICHEVER IS 
 GREATER AT 17 km RESOLUTION 
 
 1 SEA ICE CONCENTRATION TO WITHIN «I5», AT 9 km RESOLUTION 
 
 •TYPE CLASSIFICATION - NEW, FIRST-YEAR. MULTI-YEAR 
 
 •AGE - INFERRED THICKNESS TO WITHIN '2 m 
 
 ATMOSPHERIC WATER VAPOR TO WITHIN *0.2g cm 2 AT 9km RESOLUTION 
 
 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 • ORBITAL ALTITUDE 
 
 • WEIGHT 
 
 • DIGITIZATION 
 
 • DATA RATE 
 
 • POWER I NOMINAL-AVERAGE' 
 
 • FREOUENCY 'GHl' 
 
 • WAVELENGTH icmi 
 
 • ANTENNA APERTURE -• 
 
 • POLARIZATION -• 
 
 • CROSS-POLARIZATION ISOLATION -• 
 
 • 3 dB 6EAMWIDTH Idegl 1.3 
 
 • BEAM, EFFICIENCY "■ 
 
 • EFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY T„ iKHAVG VALUE! 0.2 
 
 • CALIBRATION PRECISION IKI (AVG VALUE! 0.5 
 
 • SCAN NADIR ANGLE ■" 
 
 • VIEWING ZENITH INCIDENCE ANGLE -• 
 
 • 3-AXIS VIEWING ANGLE KNOWLEDGE -m 
 
 • FOOTPRINT km < Urn' 23*36 
 
 • SCAN RATE — 
 
 • ACTIVE SCAN ARC .FORWASD. -* 
 
 • SWATH WIDTH ■ 150° SCAN. ■"> 
 
 • IFOVi SAMPLED PER SCAN "* 
 
 iEACH CHANNEL! 
 
 roo km 
 
 320k, 
 12 bin 
 64 kb ! 
 350 W NOMINAL AVERAGE' 
 
 4.3 5.1 6.o 10.65 
 
 70 5.9 4 5 2.3 
 
 . 4 i 
 
 21 -3 
 I 4 
 
 3 
 5 
 
 -HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL 
 
 17 dB (MINIMUM! 
 
 3.9 3 6 3 3 3.26 
 
 90°; [MINIMUM! 
 
 3 4 1.0 15 1.5 
 
 1.0 1.0 15 15 
 
 43,6* 
 
 50.3° 
 
 1 3 BEAMWIDTH 
 
 16.25 H-17 5-3 5-7 
 
 60 rpm 
 
 150" 
 
 I 372 km 
 
 Figure F-2. 
 
 LAMMR baseline description 
 
 118 
 
PERFORMANCE 
 
 REAL TIME ONE SECOND SIGNIFICANT WAVEHEIGHT (H I 31 MEASUREMENT 
 ACCURACY - *0.5 m OR 10% WHICHEVER IS GREATER FOR H 1 3 FROM I TO 20 m 
 
 SIXTY-EIGHT PERCENT 'IC> OF ONE SECOND ALTITUDE MEASUREMENTS 
 TO LIE WITHIN t 10 cm OF THE FITTED MEAN 
 
 BACKSCATTER MEASUREMENT PRECISION WITHIN =0. 5 dB FOR WIND SPEED DETERMINATION 
 
 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 • ORBITAL ALTITUDE 700km 
 
 ■ TWO ALTIMETERS 'REDUNDANT FOR 3- YEAR TOTAL DESIGN LIFE ■ 
 
 (FREQUENCY 
 
 "PULSE WIDTH 'UNCOMPRESSED) 
 I TRANSMIT TIME -f- TOTAL TIME 
 I PULSE REPETITION RATE 
 
 > COMPRESSED PULSE WIDTH* 
 i CHIRP "ATE* 
 
 > ADAPTIVE BANDWIDTH* 
 ' ANTENNA 8EAMWIDTH 
 
 ■ ANTENNA POLARIZATION 
 
 ANTENNA GAIN 
 i SYSTEM NOISE TEMP, FIGURE 
 
 RECEIVER GAIN 
 
 RECEIVER DYNAMIC RANGE 
 
 RECEIVER POWER RANGES 
 
 13.56 GHz 
 
 3.2 „, 
 
 3.3 . I0' 3 
 926 Hz 
 
 3.125, 6 25 12 5 25 50 ru 
 100, 50. 25. 12 5 6 25 MHz 
 20, 40. 30 160, 320 MHz 
 
 I 6° 
 LINEAR 
 40.8 dB 
 
 II dB 
 95 d6 
 63 dB 
 
 -85 TO -22 dBm 
 
 • FOOTPRINT DIAMETER 
 
 
 • BEAM LIMITED 
 
 20 km 
 
 •PULSE LIMITED iH| ] s 1 • 
 
 1 6km 
 
 •PULSE LIMITED 'H| j * 20 m. 
 
 12km 
 
 • RANGE GATES 
 
 
 • FOR PULSE FORM DEFINITION 
 
 63 eo 
 
 • FOR RAIN GATE 
 
 2 ea* - * 
 
 • OUTPUT DATA SATE 
 
 20 kb i 
 
 • DIMENSIONS 'EACH ALTIMETER. 
 
 
 •SIGNAL PROCESSOR 
 
 34 . 51 ■ 25 
 
 •ANTENNA AND rf SECTION 
 
 100 . 80 cm 
 
 • WEIGHT .EACH ALTIMETER'. 
 
 100 kg 
 
 • AVERAGE POWER 'EACH ALT. 
 
 
 • STANDBY POv E D 
 
 1 02 w 
 
 •OPERATING 
 
 1 77 VI 
 
 • PEAK rf TRANSMIT POW'ER 
 
 2 kw 
 
 • AVERAGE rf TRANSMIT POWER 
 
 6.5 Vi 
 
 *THE FIVE LEVEL ADAPTIVE RESOLUTION IS TENTATIVELY INCLUDED 
 PEN0ING COST AND ENGINEERING IMPACT DETERMINATION 
 
 **UNDER STUDY 
 
 Figure F-3. 
 
 ALT baseline description 
 
 119 
 
SATELLITE 
 
 GROUND TRACK 
 
 I 
 
 VECTOR ZONE 
 
 'DIAGNOSTICS! 
 ZONE 
 
 VECTOR ZONE 
 
 PERFORMANCE 
 
 ACCURATE TO WITHIN «2 ■ 
 
 •OCEAN SURFACE '.VINO SPEED 4 TO 24 
 10°;. WHICHEVER IS GREATER 
 
 i OCEAN SURFACE WIND DIRECTION 0-360°. ACCURATE TO WITHIN »20 5 AND 
 WITH DIRECTIONAL AMBIGUITY 66R t CORRECT 
 
 i WIND VECTOR GRID SPACING - 50 km iGLOBALi. 25 km 'REGIONAL' 
 
 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 • ORBITAL ATTITUDE 
 
 
 
 
 ■00 i - 
 
 • S'.VATH .' IDTH 
 
 
 
 
 1320 km 
 
 • GRID SPACING a' 
 
 
 
 
 10k- 
 
 • CELL RESOLUTION a" 
 
 
 
 
 10 km . 10 km (EQUIVALENT 
 
 • CELL "ESOLLTION .VINO 
 
 VECTOR, 
 
 LEVEL 1 
 
 
 •GLOBAL AT FULL PRECISION 
 
 
 50 km . 50 km 
 
 • REGIONAL AT REDUCED 
 
 PRECISION 
 
 25 km . 25 km 
 
 • F'EOUENCY 
 
 
 
 
 13.99 GH2 
 
 • BANDWIDTH 
 
 
 
 
 1 500 k Hi 
 
 • ANTENNA POLARIZATION 
 
 
 
 
 HO»IZ VERTICAL 
 
 • ANTENNA PEAK GAIN 
 
 
 
 
 32.5 IB 
 
 • BEAT/.' IDTH 
 
 
 
 
 • 2 5 . 25° 
 
 • MEASUREMENT SAMPLING PERIOD 
 FOR EACH ANTENNA 
 
 • DIGITIZATION 
 . ;ata = aTE 
 
 C TRANSMIT TIME £ TOTAL TIME 
 
 0.25 > 
 
 12 bit, 
 
 20 Lb ■. 
 0.21 
 
 ' PULSE .IDTH 
 PULSE REPETITION SATE 
 AVERAGE TRANSMITTED PO"E = 
 PEAK TRANSMITTED POWER 
 RECEIVER NOISE TEMPERATURE 
 GAIN CONTROL 
 MAXIMUM BIAS ERROR 
 SYSTEM PRECISION 
 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS '2 
 
 WEIGHT 
 POWE = 
 
 • DIMENSIONS 
 
 •ANTENNAS 
 •ELECTRONICS 
 
 • EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION PERIOD 
 FOR 10 km « 10 km RESOLUTION CELL 
 
 3ACKSCATTER & RECEIVED SIGNAL 
 
 5.0 ms 
 
 42 puisei % 
 
 21 .' 
 1 00 w 
 7'0 k 
 
 AUTOMATIC 
 ;±2 dB 
 to. I dB 
 
 SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION 
 3 ANTENNAS EACH SYSTEM1 
 WITH DUAL POLARIZATION 
 240 k 9 
 
 260 V. REGULATED 
 170 W UNREGULATED 
 
 310 x 10 * 15 cm iEACHI 
 115 ■ 55 • 31 cm 'EACH' 
 
 3ACKSCATTER, ciB 
 ■ IND ANGLE '<, 
 
 RECEIVED SIGNAL, aBm 
 
 - 1 
 
 25 
 
 
 55" 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 H 
 
 V 
 
 H 
 
 4 -14 
 
 
 -13 6 
 
 -37 5 
 
 -43.0 
 
 24 -3.0 
 
 
 -3.6 
 
 -U i 
 
 -19.5 
 
 48 1 .2 
 
 
 .35 
 
 -6.0 
 
 -10 3 
 
 IND 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 MGLE 
 
 In 
 
 
 
 m s 
 
 
 25' 
 
 
 
 
 55 J 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 4 
 
 TBD 
 
 
 TBD 
 
 
 TBO 
 
 
 TBD 
 
 24 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 Figure F-4. 
 
 SCATT baseline description 
 
 120 
 
APPENDIX G 
 
 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 AOML 
 APT 
 ATS 
 AVHRR 
 
 Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory 
 Automatic Picture Transmission 
 Applications Technology Satellites 
 Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer 
 
 CEAS 
 
 CCT 
 
 CZCS 
 
 Center for Environmental Assessment Services 
 Computer Compatible Tapes 
 Coastal Zone Color Scanner 
 
 DOC Department of Commerce 
 
 DOD Department of Defense 
 
 DOMSAT Domestic Communication Satellite System 
 
 EDIS 
 EROS 
 ESIC 
 ESSA 
 
 FACA 
 
 Environmental Data and Information Service 
 
 Earth Resources Observational System 
 
 Environmental Science Information Center 
 
 Environmental Science Services Administration (Predecessor to NOAA) 
 
 Federal Advisory Committee Act 
 
 GEM-lOb 
 
 GEOS 
 
 GMT 
 
 GOES 
 
 GOSSTCOMP 
 
 GSA 
 
 A geoid model 
 
 Geodynamics Experimental Oceanographic Satellite (NASA) 
 
 Greenwich Mean Time 
 
 Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (NOAA) 
 
 Global Operational Sea Surface Temperature Computation 
 
 General Services Administration 
 
 HRPT 
 
 High Resolution Picture Transmission 
 
 IFOV 
 
 IR 
 
 ITOS 
 
 Instantaneous Field of View 
 
 Infrared 
 
 Improved TIROS Operational Satellite 
 
 JPL 
 
 Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
 
 LAMMR Large Antenna Multichannel Microwave Radiometer 
 
 LANDSAT Land Observing Satellite (NASA) 
 
 MTS 
 
 Marine Technology Society 
 
 NAFAX 
 
 NASA 
 
 NEFC 
 
 NESS 
 
 NIMBUS 
 
 NMFS 
 
 NOAA 
 
 NODS 
 
 NOS 
 
 National Facsimile Network 
 
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
 
 Northeast Fisheries Center 
 
 National Environmental Satellite Service 
 
 Atmospheric and Oceanic Observing Satellite (NASA) 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 
 NOAA Oceanic Data System 
 
 National Ocean Survey 
 
 121 
 
NOSS 
 NSTL 
 NWFC 
 NWS 
 
 National Oceanic Satellite System 
 National Space Technology Laboratories 
 Northwest Fisheries Center 
 National Weather Service 
 
 PMEL 
 
 QEII 
 
 R&D 
 
 SAR 
 
 SASS 
 
 SEASAT 
 
 SDSD 
 
 SEFC 
 
 SIO 
 
 SMMR 
 
 SMS 
 
 SOSU 
 
 SST 
 
 SWFC 
 
 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 
 
 Queen Elizabeth II 
 
 Research and Development 
 
 Synthetic Aperture Radar 
 
 Seasat Scatterometer System 
 
 Oceanic Observing Satellite (NASA) 
 
 Satellite Data Services Division 
 
 Southeast Fisheries Center 
 
 Scripps Institute of Oceanography 
 
 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer 
 
 Synchronous Meteorological Satellites 
 
 Seattle's Ocean Services Unit 
 
 Sea Surface Temperature 
 
 Southwest Fisheries Center 
 
 TDRSS 
 TIROS 
 
 USGS 
 
 VHRR 
 VI RR 
 VISSR 
 
 WEFAX 
 WHOI 
 WSFO 
 WWB 
 
 XBT 
 
 Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System 
 
 Television and Infrared Observation Satellite (NASA/NOAA) 
 
 United States Geological Survey 
 
 Very High Resolution Radiometer 
 Visible and Infrared Radiometer 
 Visible Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer 
 
 Weather Facsimile 
 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 
 Weather Service Forecast Office 
 World Weather Building 
 
 Expendable Bathythermography 
 
 122 
 
APPENDIX H 
 
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 CIRCULATION 
 
 Byrne, H.M. "Preliminary Comparison of Seasat 
 Altimetry Data and Oceanographic Data 
 Across the Kuroshio." American Geophysical 
 Union (Fall 1978). 
 
 . "Seasat Altimeter Observations of 
 
 the Kuroshio Region." Paper delivered at 
 Seasat Colloquium, Scripps Institution of 
 Oceanography, Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 1979. 
 
 Byrne, H.M. and Pullen, P.E. "Comparison of 
 Sea Surface Slope from the Seasat Altimeter 
 and Coincident Hydrographic Data," 
 American Geophysical Union (Spring 1979). 
 
 . "Preliminary Analysis of Altimetric 
 
 Data Across the Gulf Stream during the 
 September Repeat Orbit Period," American 
 Geophysical Union (Fall 1978). 
 
 . "Radar Altimetry for Use in 
 
 Measuring Sea Surface Slope." Paper 
 delivered at IEEE/APS/URSI Symposium, 
 June 1979. 
 
 Clark, D.K. "Photoplankton Algorithms for the 
 Nimbus-7 CZCS." Paper presented at 
 COSPAR/SCOR/IUCRM Symposium, 
 
 Oceanography from Space, Venice, Italy, May 
 1980. 
 
 Clark, D.K., Baker, E.T., and Strong, A.E. 
 "Upwelled Spectral Radiance Distribution in 
 Relation to Particulate Math in Sea Water," 
 Boundary- Layer Meteorology, Vol. 18 (1980) 
 pp. 287-298. 
 
 Gordon, H., e± _aU_ "Phytoplankton Pigments 
 Derived from the Nimbus-7 CZCS: Initial 
 Comparisons with Surface Measurements." 
 Science, in press. 
 
 Hovis, W.A. and Leung, K.C. "Remote Sensing 
 of Ocean Color," Optical Engineering, Vol. 
 16, No. 2 (March/April 1977) pp. 158-166. 
 
 Hovis, W.A., ^t_ _aJ-_ "Nimbus-7 Coastal Zone 
 Color Scanner: System Description and 
 Initial Imagery," Science (in press). 
 
 . "Western Boundary Current 
 
 Variability from Seasat Data," American 
 Geophysical Union (Fall 1979). 
 
 Byrne, H.M., Pullen, P.E. and Harvey, R.H. 
 "Seasat Derived Ocean Topography: 
 Comparison with Coincident Hydrographic 
 Data." Submitted to Journal of Geophysical 
 Research. 
 
 Gonzalez, F.I. "The Use of Synthetic Aperture 
 Radar for Measurement of Ocean Surface 
 Currents," American Geophysical Union (Fall 
 1978). 
 
 CZCS 
 
 ICE 
 
 Martin, S. and Kauffman, P. Data Report on 
 the Ice Cores Taken During the March 1979 
 Bering Sea Ice Edge Field Cruise on the 
 NO A A Ship SURVEYOR (1979). 
 
 Martin, S. and Bauer, J. "Bering Sea Ice Edge 
 Phenomena." Submitted as a chapter for 
 a proposed Bureau of Land Management 
 book (1980). 
 
 McNutt, S.L. "Remote Sensing Analysis of Ice 
 Characteristics in the Eastern Bering Sea." 
 Submitted to Monthly Weather Review 
 (1980). 
 
 Austin, R.W. "The Determination of the Diffuse 
 Attenuation Coefficient of Sea Water Using 
 the Coastal Zone Color Scanner." 
 Proceedings, COSPAR/SCOR/LUCRM 
 Symposium, Oceanography from Space, 
 Venice, Italy (May 1980) (in press). 
 
 SST 
 
 Lipes, R.G., et al. "Seasat Scanning Microwave 
 Radiometer: Results of the Gulf of Alaska 
 Workshop", Science, Vol. 204 (1979), pp. 1415- 
 1417. 
 
 123 
 
. "Scanning Multichannel Microwave 
 
 Radiometer Mini-Workshop Report." Report 
 622-208, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
 Pasadena, CA, pp. 33. 
 
 WAVES 
 
 Alpers, W.R., Ross, D.B., and Rufenach, C.L. 
 "On The Detectability of Ocean Surface 
 Waves by Real and Synthetic Aperture 
 Radar." Submitted to Journal of Geophysical 
 Research (December 1979). 
 
 Alpers, W.R. and Rufenach, C.L. "The Effect 
 of Orbital Motion on Synthetic Aperture 
 Radar Imagery of Ocean Waves." IEEE 
 Trans. Antenna Propagation, AP-27 (1979) 
 pp. 685-690. 
 
 Apel, J.R. "Seasat SAR: Ocean Wave Detection 
 Capabilities." Science, Vol. 204 (June 1979). 
 
 Beal, R.C. "Ocean Wave Detection Capability," 
 Science, Vol. 204, Mo. 4400 (June 29, 1979). 
 
 . "Results from Seasat SAR." Paper 
 
 delivered at NORDA Seasat Conference, 
 Bay St. Louis, MS, November 13, 1979. 
 
 Measurements." Paper delivered at Spring 
 URSI Meeting, Seattle, WA, June 18-22, 
 1979. 
 
 . "Low Energy Wave Detection with 
 
 Seasat SAR." Paper delivered at special 
 session of URSI, Boulder, CO, November 7, 
 1979. 
 
 . "Detection of Low Energy Swell 
 
 System off the U.S. East Coast with the 
 Seasat SAR." Paper delivered at Seasat 
 Colloquium, Scripps Institute of 
 Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, October 29, 
 1979. 
 
 Fedor, L.S., Godbey, T.W., Gower, J.F.R., Guptill, 
 R., Hayne, G.S., Rufenach, C.I., and Walsh, 
 E.J. "Satellite Altimeter Measurements of 
 Sea State: An Algorithm Comparison," 
 Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 04, 
 pp. 3901^001. 
 
 Fedor, L.S. and Leese, J. A. "The Seasat Radar 
 Altimeter — A Study of Waveheight 
 
 Gonzalez, F.I. 
 Results." 
 
 "GOASEX Workshop SAR Panel 
 Oceans 1979 (September, 1979). 
 
 . "Seasat-A Synthetic Aperture 
 
 Radar Imagery of Ocean Waves." Paper 
 delivered at IEEE/APS/URSI Symposium, 
 Seattle, WA, June 1979. 
 
 . "Ocean Surface Wave Detection 
 
 by Seasat SAR." Paper delivered at 
 GOASEX, IUGG, Canberra, Australia, 
 December 1979. 
 
 Gonzalez, F.I., Beal, R.C, Brown, W.E., Gower, 
 J.F.R., Lichy, D., Ross, D.B., Rufenach, 
 C.L., and Schuchman, R.A. "Seasat 
 Synthetic Aperture Radar: Ocean Wave 
 Detection Capabilities." Science, Vol. 204 
 (1979) pp. 1418-1421. 
 
 Jones, W.L. et al. "Seasat Scatterometer: Results 
 of the Gulf of Alaska Workshop." Science, 
 Vol. 204, No. 4400, pp. 1413-1415." 
 
 McLeish, W. et al. "SAR Imaging of Ocean Waves 
 III: Comparison with Wave Measurements." 
 Submitted to Journal of Geophysical 
 Research, November 1979. 
 
 Rufenach, C.L. and Alpers, W.R. "Influence of 
 Integration Time on Radar Imagery of 
 Moving Ocean Waves." Submitted to IEEE 
 Trans. Antenna Propagation (1979). 
 
 Schuchman, R.A., Rufenach, C.L., Gonzalez, F.I., 
 Klooster, A. "The Feasibility of 
 Measurement of Ocean Surface Currents 
 Using Synthetic Aperture Radar," 
 Proceedings of the 13th International 
 Symposium on Remote Sensing of 
 Environment Ann Arbor, Ml, Vol. 1 (1979) 
 pp. 93-102. 
 
 WIND 
 
 American Meteorological Society. Report on the 
 Fourth Conference on Numerical Weather 
 
 124 
 
Prediction. Held in Silver Spring, Maryland, 
 October-29-November 2, 1979. 
 
 Brucks, J.T., Jones, W.L., and Leming, T.D. 
 "Comparison of Surface Wind Stress 
 Measurements: Airborne Radar 
 
 Scatterometer versus Sonic Anemometer." 
 (The final manuscript is to be published in 
 a JGR special issue devoted to the Seasat- 
 A West Coast Experiment.) 
 
 Fedor, L.S., Grantham, W.L., Bracalente, E.M., 
 Swift, C.T., and Cardone, V. 
 "Intercom parison of the Seasat SASS, SMMR, 
 and Altimeter Derived Winds." (Oceans 79, 
 San Diego, CA, September 17-19, 1979). 
 
 Jarrell, J., Ernst, J., Schacher, G., and Davidson, 
 K. "1980:MABLE-WC and Seasat-1 
 
 Observations." Proceedings of the Second 
 Conference on Coastal Meteorology. Held 
 in Los Angeles, CA, January 30-February 1, 
 1980 (A MS) (in press). 
 
 Yu, T.W. and McPherson, R.D. "Optimum 
 Interpolation Analysis of Surface Pressure 
 Using Seasat-A Scatterometer Wind Data." 
 NMC Office Note 202 (June 1979). (Also 
 presented at the Fourth Conference on 
 Numerical Weather Prediction of the 
 American Meteorological Society held in 
 Silver Spring, MD, October 29-November 2, 
 1979). 
 
 OTHER 
 
 Brammer, R.F. "Estimation of the Ocean Geoid 
 Near the Blake Escarpment Using GEOS- 
 3 Satellite Altimetry Data." J ournal of 
 Geophysical Research, Vol. 84, No. B8, 
 (July 1979). 
 
 . "Processing Seasat Altimeter Data 
 
 Detect Seamounts." The Analytic 
 
 to 
 
 Sciences Corporation, Report No. TP-3099, 
 (November 1979). 
 
 "The Resolution Capability of the 
 Radar Altimeter." The Analytic 
 
 Brucks, J.T. "Fisheries Sensing and Resource 
 Assessment." Paper delivered at the First 
 North Atlantic Remote Sensing Workshop 
 sponsored by Center for Ocean Management 
 Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, 
 Rl, May 30-June 1, 19 7 9. 
 
 Cheney, R.E., and Marsh, J.G. "Seasat Altimetry 
 Observations of Dynamic Ocean Currents 
 in the Gulf Stream Region." NASA, 
 Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 
 MD. 
 
 Fedor, L.S., Swift, C.T., Bracalente, E.M., 
 Grantham, W.L., Brown, G.S., Gonzalez, F. 
 and Beal, R.C. "An Intercomparison of the 
 Wind Measuring Instruments on Seasat." 
 Paper delivered at Fall URSI Meeting, 
 Boulder, CO, Nov. 5-8, 1979. 
 
 Hoppe, E.R., and Needham, B.H. "Environmental 
 Satellite Data Products and Services." 
 Environmental Data and Information Service, 
 Vol. 10, No. 04 (July 1979). 
 
 Lipa, B.J. "Statistical Interpretation of Leading 
 Edge Seasat Altimeter Echo." Paper 
 delivered at the Seasat Colloquium, La Jolla, 
 CA, October 24-November 1, 1979. 
 
 Lipes, R.G. ^jij^ "Seasat Scanning Multichannel 
 Microwave Radiometer: Results of the Gulf 
 of Alaska Workshop." Science, Vol. 204, 
 #4400 (June 24, 1979), pp. 1415-1417. 
 
 Sailor, R.V., and Brammer, R.F. "Preliminary 
 Estimates of the Resolution Capability of the 
 SEASAT Radar Altimeter." EOS Trans. 
 
 American Geophysical Union, Vol. 60 (October 
 1979) p. 736. 
 
 . "Preliminary Estimates of the 
 
 Seasat-A 
 
 Sciences Corporation, Report No. TP-1404- 
 
 3 (March 1978). 
 
 Resolution Capability of the Seasat Radar 
 Altimeter." To be published in Geophysical 
 Research Letters. 
 
 Tapley, B.D., et al. "Seasat Altimeter Calibration: 
 Initial Results." Science, Vol. 204 (1979), 
 pp. 1410-1412. 
 
 ■&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 9 8 0-3 3 2 " 3 4 6 / 6 8 2 3 
 
 125 
 

 ,. 4s$5 
 
 '-—-.- 
 
 
 
 --- 
 
 
 
 •-„ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■-- 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 V " 
 
 -, 
 
 
 ; 
 
 s $\ 
 
 I ■: . ' 
 
 
 
 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 ADDDDTDTMSIS?