[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TO OBSERVE AND PROTECT:
HOW NOAA PROCURES DATA
FOR WEATHER FORECASTING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-606 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SANDY ADAMS, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois PAUL D. TONKO, New York
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
C O N T E N T S
March 28, 2012
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Panel I
Ms. Mary Kicza, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Research Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes, Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA
Mr. John Murphy, Chief, Programs and Plans Division, National
Weather Service, NOAA
Panel II
Mr. Eric Webster, Vice President and Director, Weather Systems,
ITT Exelis
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Dr. David Crain, Chief Executive Officer, GeoMetWatch
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Mr. Bruce Lev, Vice Chairman, AirDat LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 71
Written Statement............................................ 81
Dr. Berrien Moore, Dean, University of Oklahoma College of
Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences, and Director, National
Weather Center
Oral Statement............................................... 82
Written Statement............................................ 84
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Mary Kicza, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).............................. 100
Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Research Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes, Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA......................... 113
Mr. John Murphy, Chief, Programs and Plans Division, National
Weather Service, NOAA.......................................... 122
Mr. Eric Webster, Vice President and Director, Weather Systems,
ITT Exelis..................................................... 130
Dr. David Crain, Chief Executive Officer, GeoMetWatch............ 134
Mr. Bruce Lev, Vice Chairman, AirDat LLC......................... 152
Dr. Berrien Moore, Dean, University of Oklahoma College of
Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences, and Director, National
Weather Center................................................. 156
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted Report for the Record by Mr. Bruce Lev, Vice Chairman,
AirDat LLC..................................................... 162
TO OBSERVE AND PROTECT:
HOW NOAA PROCURES DATA
FOR WEATHER FORECASTING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:03 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy
Harris [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Harris. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing
entitled To Observe and Protect: How NOAA Procures Data for
Weather Forecasting. In front of you are packets containing the
written testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony
disclosures for today's witness panel. I now recognize myself
five minutes for an opening statement.
First of all, I want to thank you all for your patience
while we were on the Floor voting, and I want to welcome
everyone to this afternoon's hearing to gain a better
understanding of the NOAA's approach to procuring data for
weather forecasting.
Three weeks ago while testifying before this Subcommittee,
NOAA Administrator Lubchenco spoke of the tough choices
required in developing the Administration's fiscal year 2013
budget request, which, by the way, included an increase in
overall funding of 3.1 percent. Each year, the budget request
for satellite programs grows as a percentage of NOAA's total
budget request. NOAA's ``tough choices'' have resulted in
placing nearly all of its eggs in a single basket: satellite
systems fraught with a long history of major problems. These
decisions are now causing trade-offs with other valuable
networks.
Today's hearing is designed to take a closer look at the
NOAA process for making those tough choices when it comes to
costly observing systems, including how requirements are
determined, how data needs are met and how NOAA research is
facilitating better analysis and technologies.
We all recognize three things about NOAA and weather
forecasting in the future: First, recent severe storms have
reaffirmed that we need to focus limited NOAA resources on
preventing the loss of lives and property. Second, NOAA
satellite programs have been plagued by schedule delays,
chronic mismanagement and significant cost overruns. Third, as
admitted by NOAA and confirmed by GAO experts, there will be a
gap in polar-orbiting satellite data in the not-too-distant
future, and Dr. Lubchenco told this Committee earlier this
month that there aren't any ``viable alternative options.'' We
hope to explore this statement in further detail today.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request provides a perfect
illustration of the need to take a closer look at NOAA's
process. Satellite programs represent almost 40 percent of the
total $5.1 billion budget request, with the result being that
programs in other line offices suffer. The decision to invest
so heavily in the currently planned space-based remote sensing
systems comes at the expense of observing systems that would
come at a small fraction of the price.
For example, NOAA has made decisions to eliminate or reduce
investments in the national Profiler Network, the national
Mesonet Network, and the tsunami buoy network. These decisions
will affect lives and property and do not seem to be based on
independent analysis.
Knowing the challenges NOAA and the Weather Service face,
it is all the more important that we conduct impartial
technical assessments to guarantee that the money we spend on a
combination of observing systems gets us the greatest
forecasting bang for our buck, and that our data procurement is
based on costs and benefits, rather than subjective thinking.
Rather than relying on the whims of an individual
Administration or the opinions of subject matter experts
divorced from fiscal realities or program managers wedded to
certain systems, NOAA needs to undertake comprehensive,
objective and quantitative evaluations of observing systems
that incorporates cost.
There are options available to conduct more thorough
analysis of these systems. For example, in a recent article,
Administrator Lubchenco referred to the use of Observing System
Simulation Experiments, or OSSE, as a ``powerful tool,'' and
that is her quote, a powerful tool for evaluating different
combinations of observing systems to meet forecasting needs.
Unfortunately, NOAA has not used this powerful tool to guide
decision-making related to current weather data challenges.
The status quo can't continue. We no longer have the
budgetary luxury to repeat past mistakes in our approach to
procuring data for weather forecasting. NOAA needs to think
beyond its current framework on the most cost-effective and
efficient way to get data for weather forecasting.
Technological advancements in the last two decades make it
possible for more information to come from the private sector
while still maintaining the level of quality assurance
necessary for accurate weather forecasting. Improvements in
computer processing and data assimilation allow for different
combinations of data to create advanced forecasts. Such
progress requires NOAA employ objective analysis to determine
the best course forward.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee, and I look forward to a constructive discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris
I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon's hearing to gain a
better understanding of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's approach to procuring data for weather forecasting.
Three weeks ago while testifying before this Subcommittee, NOAA
Administrator Lubchenco spoke of the ``tough choices'' required in
developing the Administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request, which,
by the way, included an increase in funding of 3.1 percent. Each year,
the budget request for satellite programs grows as a percentage of
NOAA's total budget request. NOAA's ``tough choices'' have resulted in
placing nearly all of its eggs in a single basket: satellite systems
fraught with a long history of major problems. These decisions are
causing trade-offs with other valuable networks. Today's hearing is
designed to take a closer look at the NOAA process for making those
tough choices when it comes to costly observing systems, including how
requirements are determined, how data needs are met and how NOAA
research is facilitating better analysis and technologies.
We all recognize three things about NOAA and weather forecasting in
the future: First, recent severe storms have reaffirmed that we need to
focus limited NOAA resources on preventing the loss of lives and
property. Second, NOAA satellite programs have been plagued by schedule
delays, chronic mismanagement and significant cost overruns. Third, as
admitted by NOAA and confirmed by Government Accountability Office
experts, there will be a gap in polar-orbiting satellite data in the
not-too-distant future, and Dr. Lubchenco told this Committee earlier
this month that there aren't any ``viable alternative options.'' We
hope to explore this statement in further detail today.
The FY13 budget request provides a perfect illustration of the need
to take a closer look at NOAA's process. Satellite programs represent
almost 40 percent of the total $5.1 billion budget request, with the
result being that programs in other line offices suffer. The decision
to invest so heavily in the currently planned space-based remote
sensing systems comes at the expense of observing systems that would
come at a small fraction of the price. For example, NOAA has made
decisions to eliminate or reduce investments in the national Profiler
Network, the national Mesonet Network, and the tsunami buoy network.
These decisions will affect lives and property and have not seemed to
have been based on independent analysis.
Knowing the challenges NOAA and the Weather Service face, it is all
the more important that we conduct impartial technical assessments to
guarantee that the money we spend on a combination of observing systems
gets us the greatest forecasting bang for our buck, and that our data
procurement is based on costs and benefits, rather than subjective
thinking. Rather than relying on the whims of an individual
Administration or the opinions of subject matter experts divorced from
fiscal realities or program managers wedded to certain systems, NOAA
needs to undertake comprehensive, objective, and quantitative
evaluations of observing systems that incorporates cost.
There are options available to conduct more thorough analysis of
these systems. For example, in a recent article, Administrator
Lubchenco referred to the use of Observing System Simulation
Experiments (OSSEs) as a ``powerful tool'' for evaluation different
combinations of observing systems to meet forecasting needs.
Unfortunately, NOAA has not used this powerful tool to guide decision-
making related to current weather data challenges.
The status quo cannot continue. We no longer have the budgetary
luxury to repeat past mistakes in our approach to procuring data for
weather forecasting. NOAA needs to think beyond its current framework
on the most cost-effective and efficient way to get data for weather
forecasting. Technological advancements in the last two decades make it
possible for more information to come from the private sector while
still maintaining the level of quality assurance necessary for weather
forecasting. Improvements in computer processing and data assimilation
allow for different combinations of data to create advanced forecasts.
Such progress requires NOAA employ objective analysis to determine the
best course forward.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee
and I look forward to a constructive discussion.
Chairman Harris. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Miller, the
Ranking Member, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Harris. I also want to
welcome the witnesses today and thank them for being here to
shed light on what has become a protracted problem for NOAA but
one that is now marked by a new urgency.
For years the Nation's multi-billion dollar weather and
climate satellite program has been the center of this
committee's investigations and oversight agenda. I called the
late and unlimited NPOESS program the most snake-bit program in
the Federal Government at a hearing of the Investigations and
Oversight Subcommittee when I chaired that subcommittee.
But despite relentless pressure from both parties to get
those programs under control, they have continued to
experienced costly overruns, and they almost never launch on
schedule. Most of those problems, really almost all of those
problems, really existed before this Administration. They were
waiting on the desk when the new Administration arrived, but
now it is a task of this Administration, the Obama
Administration, to fix those problems. In addition to being
inexcusably wasteful, the programs expose the country to a very
real possibility that we will see a gap in our weather and
climate forecasting abilities given the expected life of the
weather satellites now flying. From the deadliest tornado in
more than half-a-century to the unprecedented heat wave just
this month, almost every part of the country is facing severe,
life-threatening, and record-breaking weather events.
Good weather data is more important than ever. Yet, yes,
satellites are expensive, but they are central to protecting
life and property, and the cost of inferior systems could be
far greater.
So today we are asking several questions. Is the timeframe
realistic? Is the attempt to cobble together a backup system in
the event that our current satellite systems fail as expected
based upon their projected expected life while we are still
waiting for new systems to come on line? Is all that worth the
cost or should we now just rethink our reliance on satellites
altogether as some now argue, perhaps out of frustration with
the many problems in the satellite programs.
As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, we have to manage
these programs in the most fiscally responsible way while
avoiding a reduction of the service and protection we come to
expect and need. It also means we have to recognize when we can
tinker and when we have to take more drastic action. Over the
years, talented and innovative researchers and scientists in
the public and private sector have developed a wide range of
technologies and methods, weather radar, buoys, aerial data,
wind profilers, atmospheric sounders that give us both depth
and flexibility in anticipating the effects of weather. What I
would like for us to learn today is how these and other
technologies can complement the work of the satellites or if,
when combined, they can give us much the same capability at
less cost.
Whatever the answer, we have to be strategic in our
decision, evaluating the benefits of the individual
technologies while considering the cost in realistic lead time
for their development. At this point, to avoid a potential
weather data gap, maybe all we can do is cross our fingers and
hope that the existing polar satellite lasts beyond its
designed life, its expected life, and we will have more time to
get the next satellite successfully launched. But that is no
way to plan our Nation's strategy for advanced weather
forecasting, and we have to be prepared not to be that lucky. A
weather data gap could occur as early as 2016, assuming the
satellite does survive the expected time, which gives us four
years to develop, test and have ready any capability to
mitigate the gap. These are complicated and expensive systems,
and four years is not a long time for such an expensive and
complicated system.
So I am interested to hear what NOAA's plans are and what
the other witnesses are suggesting as realistic and cost-
effective strategies for minimizing the damage of this
predicament. Mr. Chairman, this should be a good hearing, one
of the most important aspects of this committee's jurisdiction.
Thank you for holding this hearing today and for your staff
working with my staff, and I look forward to a lively and
informative discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Brad Miller
Thank you, Chairman Harris. I also want to welcome the witnesses
and thank them for being here to shed light on what has become a
protracted problem for NOAA, but one that is now marked by a new
urgency.
For years, the Nation's multi-billion dollar weather and climate
satellite programs have been at the center of this Committee's
investigations and oversight agenda. Despite relentless pressure from
both sides of the aisle to get these programs under control, they
continue to experience cost overruns and almost never launch on-
schedule. Many of these problems existed before this Administration,
but it is now the task of this Administration to fix those problems. In
addition to inexcusably wasteful, the problems expose the country to a
very real chance that we will see a gap in our weather and climate
forecasting abilities, given the expected life of the weather
satellites now flying.
From the deadliest tornado year in more than half a century, to the
unprecedented heat wave this month, are facing severe, life-
threatening, and record-breaking weather events across the country.
Good weather data is more important than ever. Yes, satellites are
expensive, but they are essential to protecting life and property, and
the costs of inferior systems could be far greater.
So, today we are asking several questions. Is the time-frame
realistic? Is the attempt to cobble together a backup system in the
event that our current satellite-based systems fail while we wait for
new systems to come online worth the cost? Or, is it simply time to
rethink our reliance on satellites altogether, as some now argue.
Being stewards of the taxpayers' dollar means that we have to
manage these programs in the most fiscally-responsible way while
avoiding a reduction of the service and protection we have come to
expect. It also means that we have to recognize when we can tinker with
what we have and when more drastic action is necessary. Over the years,
talented and innovative researchers and scientists in the public and
private sector have developed a wide range of technologies and
methods--such as weather radars, buoys, aerial data, wind profilers,
and atmospheric sounders--that give us both depth and flexibility in
anticipating the effects of weather. What I would like for us to learn
today is how these and other technologies can complement the work of
the satellites, or if, when combined, they can give us the same
capability at less cost. Whatever the answer, we have to be strategic
in our decisions, evaluating the benefits of the individual
technologies while considering their cost and realistic lead-time for
their development.
At this point, to avoid a potential weather data gap, maybe all we
can do is cross our fingers and hope that the existing polar satellite
lasts beyond its design life, buying us some time until the next
satellite is successfully launched. But that's no way to plan our
Nation's strategy for advanced weather forecasting. And we have to be
prepared not to be that lucky. A weather data gap could occur as early
as 2016, which gives us four years to develop, test, and have ready any
capability to mitigate the gap. These are complicated and expensive
systems, and four years is not a long time for such an undertaking. So
I am interested to hear what NOAA's plans are, and what the other
witnesses are suggesting as realistic and cost-effective strategies for
minimizing the damage of this predicament.
Mr. Chairman, this should be a good hearing on one of the most
important aspects of this Committee's jurisdiction. Thank you for
holding this hearing today and for your staff working with my staff. I
look forward to a lively and informative discussion today and with
that, I yield back.
Mr. Miller. And I do yield back but wish to raise one minor
procedural point that I do not wish to make contentious, but at
an earlier hearing of this Subcommittee on hydraulic
fracturing, an EPA witness arrived to testify with a slide, a
PowerPoint, that had not been provided to committee staff. The
majority Republicans objected to that, and Democrats supported
that objection. We do need to have all the materials from the
witnesses to prepare properly for these hearings. It may not
look like we prepare, but we really do, or at least our staff
does. And I know there are two witnesses on the second panel
who have arrived today with PowerPoint presentations. Our staff
has reviewed those. They are generally unobjectionable. They
are unobjectionable, but it as a procedural matter, we really
do need to have those in the future. And this matter today that
is not a point of contention could be a contentious point at
some point in the future.
So I hope we will work together to make sure that does not
happen again.
Chairman Harris. And I want to thank the gentleman from
North Carolina for bringing that to our attention, and we will
work to see that it happens the way it should happen, which is
that the witnesses provide everything for review prior, and we
will of course share it amongst ourselves, whichever witnesses
it happens to be. And thanks again to the gentleman from North
Carolina for bringing it to my attention.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses for
the first panel. First witness is Ms. Mary Kicza, the Assistant
Administrator of the national Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service at NOAA. Before coming to NOAA, Ms.
Kicza was the Associate Deputy Administrator for Systems
Integration at NASA.
Our next witness is Dr. Alexander MacDonald, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Research Laboratories and
Cooperative Institutes at the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research at NOAA. Dr. MacDonald served as Acting Director for
the Earth System Research Laboratory and Director of the ESRL
Global Systems Division during the consolidation of the Boulder
Laboratories into the Earth System Research Laboratory in 2006.
The final witness on the panel, Mr. John Murphy is Chief of
the Programs and Plans Division of the National Weather Service
at NOAA. Mr. Murphy joined National Weather Service after
serving more than 29 years with the United States Air Force as
a career meteorologist.
I want to thank all of you for appearing before the
Subcommittee today. I do again want to apologize for the delay,
but we are not in charge of the House schedule. It is my
understanding that Ms. Kicza will present one testimony on
behalf of all three of the NOAA witnesses before us. However,
all three of the witnesses will be available to answer the
question of Members during the question-and-answer period for
this panel.
As our witnesses should note, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee will
have five minutes each to ask questions. I now recognize Ms.
Kicza to present testimony from the three witnesses on this
panel.
STATEMENT OF MS. MARY KICZA,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE,
DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICE, NOAA;
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ALEXANDER MACDONALD,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH
LABORATORIES AND COOPERATIVE INSTITUTES,
OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NOAA;
AND MR. JOHN MURPHY, CHIEF,
PROGRAMS AND PLANS DIVISIONS,
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NOAA
Ms. Kicza. Thank you. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member
Miller, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Mary Kicza, Assistant
Administrator for NOAA's Satellite Information Services, and
this afternoon my NOAA colleagues, Dr. Sandy MacDonald, Mr.
John Murphy and I will discuss how NOAA determines its
observation needs to support our mission, how we identify
mechanisms to fill those needs and what tools we use to
optimize the appropriate mix of systems that are used to
deliver the data required.
NOAA's mission to provide science, service and stewardship
to the Nation is fundamentally dependent on assured access to
environmental observations. Our observing requirements are
derived from the needs of our research and operational
programs. These observations are critical for developing
forecasts and warnings that are vital to protecting life and
property and promoting economic productivity.
Because no single source can provide all the data needed,
NOAA integrates data from both in-situ platforms and remotely-
sensed platforms such as aircraft and satellites. While
acquisition of observational data is funded from all of NOAA's
line and program offices, the NOAA Observing Systems Council
coordinates the processes for determining the best and most
cost-effective means of acquiring the data.
As a Vice-Chair of the NOSC, I participate in the ongoing
assessment of NOAA's observing system portfolio and the
development of recommendations made in NOAA leadership
regarding capabilities needed to meet our mission. NOSC
accomplishes this by ensuring that all of NOAA's observational
requirements are identified, documented and prioritized; that
the requirements are verified, validated and regularly updated;
and that the means to acquire the data to satisfy these
requirements are regularly assessed. This assessment includes a
determination of whether the validated requirement for an
observation can be met through existing or planned NOAA
platforms or through partnering with other federal agencies,
academic institutions or state or local governments. We have
made extensive use of partnerships with other space agencies,
both nationally and internationally to meet our requirements.
These partnerships allow for mutual full and open access to
data and are beneficial for all parties in terms of reducing
cost and risk.
NOAA has processes to assure the availability and viability
of data from commercial sources, and we routinely purchase data
and services from the commercial sector. We will continue to
pursue agreements with the commercial sector when it can
provide data that addresses our requirements at an acceptable
level of cost and risk.
NOAA regularly evaluates new observing capabilities as a
way of meeting our requirements or reducing cost. Let me turn
to the tools that we use to evaluate observing systems against
validated requirements. NOAA uses formal technical studies
called Analyses of Alternatives, or AOAs. AOAs assess the
technical feasibility and maturity of various concepts and
examine the cost, schedule and risk associated with
implementing each concept.
NOAA also uses computer models similar to our current
operational weather prediction system to estimate the impact of
new observing systems or changes to existing observing systems
to our operational forecasts.
One modeling tool is called Observing System Experiments or
Data Denial Experiments. This involves systematically adding or
denying an existing observation to a historical forecast to
determine the difference that action would have caused to the
forecast accuracy. Data Denial Experiments confirm that without
polar orbiting satellite data for the snowmageddon snow event
of February 2010, the forecast would have significantly
underestimated the amount of snow and the storm's track.
Another more advanced modeling tool NOAA currently uses is
called Adjoint Sensitivity Experiments. These experiments
quantify the contribution of a group of existing observations
to the overall reduction in forecast error. These efforts are
more sophisticated in that they look at a greater number of
observations to determine their impact on the forecast
accuracy.
NOAA has recently expanded its use of still more
sophisticated modeling tools to examining the benefit of
potential future systems, systems that don't currently exist.
These tools are called Observing System Simulation Experiments
or OSSEs. OSSEs examine future systems to determine their
relative benefit in improving future forecasts. This tool
involves the use of multiple models and is used to inform
decision-makers prior to investing in a completely new
observing system.
Each of the modeling tools has their strengths and
weaknesses, and we continue to both apply these models and
refine them so as to support our investment decisions. They are
used in conjunction with other programmatic information, like
cost, risk and schedule to inform decisions we make in fielding
existing observational capabilities or in planning for new
capabilities.
In conclusion, recognizing the current austere fiscal
environment we face, NOAA is working within its means using a
range of tools to support its investment decisions. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify, and my colleagues and I will
now answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kicza follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Harris. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses
for being available for the questioning today, reminding
Members the committee rules limit questioning to five minutes.
The Chair at this point will open the first round of questions
for this panel, and I recognize myself for five minutes.
The question I guess, whoever thinks they are best suited
to answer, you know, the testimony as well as past testimony of
GAO has indicated that even if the joint polar satellite system
is fully funded, there will be a data gap from polar orbiting
satellites for potentially several years. A few weeks ago the
Administrator as I said testified that we don't believe there
are any viable options to obtaining the data necessary for
weather forecasting. Is this statement a subjective opinion or
is it based in objective fact? Has NOAA actually undertaken a
quantitative analytical study and they concluded there is no
viable alternative to mitigate the expected data gap or is this
just the, again, kind of a subjective feeling? What
alternatives were evaluated and deemed not to be viable
alternatives? So specifically, what was looked at? Ms. Kicza,
maybe you can comment on that.
Ms. Kicza. Sure. What I would like to do is talk about the
gap first, and then I will talk about the tools we use to
evaluate the gap itself. And it is an objective statement on
the part of the Administrator.
So the concern about the gap is the time between the end of
an NPP mission, the current orbiting satellite, and the onset
of the JPSS-1 experiment. The NPP has a contractual design life
of five years that launched in late 2011. The end of the five-
year design life will be 2016.
The JPSS-1 satellite is scheduled to launch not earlier
than second quarter of fiscal year 2017. So it is a small
physical gap in terms of when two satellites are on orbit, but
the concern we have is that we need overlap of the
measurements. We want to cross-calibrate between the
measurements on NPP, on the instruments on NPP and the
instruments on JPSS-1. Depending on the complexity of the
instrument, it takes different amounts of time to fully
calibrate the instruments. Some instruments can be calibrated
within six months. Other instruments may take 12 months or
longer to calibrate. So we want overlap of those instruments.
In terms of the capabilities that NPP represents, it
provides a continuity of the capability we are currently
utilizing now to support our weather forecasts. That includes
both our current polar satellites, the POESS series of
satellites as well as the NASA capability that is afforded by
the EOS platforms. So NPP provides continuity of that. JPSS
will provide continuity beyond NPP.
When we look at the implications of denying capability from
an on-orbit forecast--that is the Data Denial Experiments I
referred to earlier--that is what we have looked at in terms of
saying there will be a gap based on the time it takes to
calibrate and the relative contribution of those instruments to
the weather forecast.
Chairman Harris. Well, let me just clear something up for
you. If one of the satellites is going off-line potentially in
2016 and the other one not coming on until 2017, there will be
no overlap. I mean, how do you calibrate a satellite that is
not functioning?
Ms. Kicza. When we talk about the contracted life, that is
what is written in the contract specification, we will see how
this spacecraft performs. It may last longer. The spacecraft
itself may last longer than the contracted for performance, but
we can't plan on that.
Chairman Harris. So if it doesn't, then there is no overlap
at all in order to calibrate one against the other?
Ms. Kicza. Then we fall back on any other assets that are
available, and we already have agreements in place with our
European counterparts for the mid-morning orbit. We back each
other up so that if we lose capability in the afternoon orbit,
we can continue to pull in data from the European's mid-morning
orbit.
Additionally, we will have any other assets that may be
available so the NPP satellite is one of the assets that are
there. Older POESS satellites, portions of those satellites and
instrument capability may continue to operate on line. We keep
those in orbit and continue to nurse those as they get older.
So we will take advantage of whatever assets we have at
that timeframe.
Chairman Harris. But it is possible that there may be
nothing to calibrate them against directly?
Ms. Kicza. There is a possibility that there would be
nothing to calibrate them against in that orbit other than in-
situ measurements that we take from the ground.
Chairman Harris. Okay. Thank you. Dr. MacDonald, where are
some of the areas of research and technology development that
could enhance our ability to protect against severe weather,
and how much would they cost to undertake?
Dr. MacDonald. Congressman, there are several new, exciting
areas of research that we have been working on. One of them is
that we know our models are crucial, and there is a really
exciting advance in our ability to do modeling using these new
kinds of computers based on graphics processor units. So we are
working hard on that research. NOAA has been funding for
several years the unmanned aircraft program looking at how we
can really address the severe weather prediction and other
capabilities using this new type of technology that we have
learned so much about.
We also are putting in new capability with our radars. For
example, the radar system is being upgraded, and we are putting
in what is called dual polarization and we have a group that
studies that and tries to improve our severe weather prediction
in that way.
So we have a lot of tools. And as Mary Kicza mentioned, we
are also looking at ways of looking at our observing systems
using all these tools that she mentioned.
Chairman Harris. Now, the budget and just one brief and
then I will turn it over to the Ranking Member, the weather
research is flat at about $69 million in the budget, but the
climate research actually increases and is three times as much.
Given the budgetary constraint, I mean, are there opportunities
that we can't investigate fully because of budgetary
constraints?
Dr. MacDonald. I think we, at my level, work as hard as we
can with the funds we are provided, and that is what we are
doing.
Chairman Harris. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kicza, I
understand NOAA's infrastructure does make it possible to
collect various data using technologies other than satellites,
radar, data buoys, wind profilers, all I mentioned in my
opening statement, on the ground and also other surface
observing systems. How important are all those technologies in
comparison to the capabilities that we now have with satellites
and how do the capability of satellites and those other
technologies depend upon each other? Can they operate
independently or do they really need to act in concert, work in
concert?
Ms. Kicza. They do need to act in concert. It is not one or
the other, it is actually both. They complement one another. If
you look at today's weather forecast modeling capabilities,
satellites on the whole contribute about 94 percent of the
input into our weather forecasting models. The in-situ
contribute the additional 6 percent.
Of the satellites, the polar orbiters, contribute about 84
percent, the geostationary, about ten percent. But both are
important to the overall forecast models.
Mr. Miller. Okay. Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Murphy, either of you
have anything to add?
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I would just like to add
that the in-situ, like Ms. Kicza says, they are complementary.
There is the modeling aspect of it, but then there is also the
forecasting aspect on the ground to put out weather forecasting
warnings. And the in-situ observations play a key part in the
forecasting of our tornado warnings and such.
Mr. Miller. Okay. I also have a question about the 2013
budget proposal request from the Administration, and given
extreme weather events that almost every state and almost every
district has experienced this year, including my district,
there was a tornado that resulted in the death of several
children. And there have been extreme weather events all over
the country. Particularly given that we are looking at the
possibility of a gap in our weather forecasting, I have to ask
about the criteria in making the decisions on what to cut, and
it seems that the proposal does cut some of these other systems
that do complement, that do need to work with our satellite.
Even assuming that the satellite proves to have a longer useful
life than we project, and even assuming that the Europeans will
be able to continue to provide us data, it seems like those
other systems are all the more important, but the proposal
would cut the wind profile, the Mesonet Network. Ms. Kicza, how
did the Administration make that decision to propose cutting
those systems and what will that do to our forecasting ability,
given all the other uncertainty about the satellites?
Ms. Kicza. I am going to start, and then I am going to ask
Mr. Murphy to augment what I have to say. When NOAA looks at
its observing capabilities, it looks at the entire portfolio
and the relative contribution that each element of that
observational portfolio contributes. As I had indicated
earlier, the satellites represent a huge contribution to our
weather forecasting capabilities. But systematically we look at
the overall portfolio, and through these types of experimental
simulation tools I have mentioned previously, we understand the
relative contribution of each of those capabilities and use
that information, combined with our situation in terms of
programmatic cost, risk and schedule to make the determinations
that we make in coming forward with budget recommendations.
I will offer Mr. Murphy any additional comments.
Mr. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Miller, as Ms. Kicza had pointed out,
we look very carefully at the portfolio, and we basically
categorize our observation systems in two ways. They are not
critical to the functions we need to perform, or they are
supplementary. That doesn't mean that they don't add value. It
just means that they are critical to our ability to put out our
forecast and warnings.
In the case of Mesonet and the profilers, we see those as
gap-fillers between our RAOBs and our regular reporting fixed-
ground sites. The primary tool that we use to issue our
warnings is the Doppler radar. Dr. MacDonald mentioned the dual
polarization upgrade. What that allows us to do is see greater
fidelity and get better understanding of storm structure, and
that is allowing us, we believe, to increase our lead times and
lower our false alarm rates. So that is how we are accounting
for that.
Mr. Miller. I know that in addition to the government
weather forecasting efforts, there are a good many
universities, researchers, others in the private sector at
businesses that do rely upon the data that you all collect and
generate. Were they consulted in the decision to cut the
budgets for those weather forecasting tools?
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Miller, I don't believe they were
consulted. Our mandate is to collect the data to provide our
services for life and property and protect the infrastructure
of the nation. We do share the information freely with our
commercial partners in academia and so forth, but we don't
collect the data for them necessarily.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Murphy, was your office consulted in the
preparation of that budget request?
Mr. Murphy. I participated in the exercise that Ms. Kicza
pointed out that the NOSC conducted where we looked at all the
observation systems, and we prioritized all our observation
systems. And that was again validated by the NOSC.
Mr. Miller. Okay. My time is expired.
Chairman Harris. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Hall,
is recognized for five minutes.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week,
Ambassador Lubchenco testified to the Appropriations Committee
she convened a group to evaluate sources of environmental data
and examine how NOAA can best utilize observing assets at the
cheapest price. Ms. Kicza, when will this analysis be complete?
Ms. Kicza. I think that Dr. Lubchenco was referring to the
fact that under the NOAA Science Advisory Board we convened a
satellite task force or working group to examine with us lower
cost approaches to both fielding the space segments and the
ground segments.
Chairman Hall. I don't really know what she was thinking,
but I am told that NOAA failed to conduct such an analysis
before submitting a budget request, and that should have made a
significant decision regarding these systems.
Ms. Kicza. I am sorry. I am referring to the task force
that she was referring to, and that will be reporting to the
NOAA Science Advisory Board in July.
In terms of making the budget recommendations for the
fiscal year 2013 budget, she consulted with all of her line
organizations as well as took the recommendations of the NOAA
Observing System Council into account in formulating that
budget.
Chairman Hall. She did conduct the analysis, though, before
submitting a budget request, right?
Ms. Kicza. Absolutely, yes.
Chairman Hall. Do you know why? Do you have any idea why
she did, why she shouldn't have?
Ms. Kicza. For each budget cycle and development, there is
a structured process of consultation.
Chairman Hall. Will this analysis incorporate objective
quantitative evaluations and comparisons of observing systems
on the basis of c-o-s-t, cost?
Ms. Kicza. Yes, the ongoing analysis that NOAA employs to
determine its observational requirements and its funding
recommendations, its investment recommendations, employs all of
the tools that I previously mentioned.
Chairman Hall. Let us talk about commercial options for
providing weather data. At least nine other U.S. built
commercial satellites are launched every year. I think that is
a fairly close estimate. The reliability of these satellites is
pretty well-established. If the government has weather
missions, it could be included on these satellites to the
benefit of all parties. It seems to me that would be a cost-
effective option. Is that unreasonable?
Ms. Kicza. No, sir, it is not.
Chairman Hall. In the past NOAA has considered this and
other commercial options. That might not work for all of NOAA's
missions, but the potential benefits and cost savings seems too
great to pass up.
Ms. Kicza. Yes, sir, and when we look at alternatives to
meeting our operational observational requirements, we do
consider all sources. We do in fact purchase commercial data
now to augment our forecasting activities. Each of our analysis
of alternatives generally does include commercial options as
well. When we make a decision, it is based on both the
technical maturity and feasibility of the option as well as the
cost and the risk.
Chairman Hall. Can you tell me why NOAA is not pursuing
commercial payload options to get necessary weather data?
Ms. Kicza. As I had said, we do currently employ commercial
services and options for purchase of data, and we explore
options in nearly every exercise that we go through before
making a determination.
Chairman Hall. Well, my time is about up. Let me ask you,
will you provide with the committee a summary in writing of
NOAA's analysis and efforts to consider these commercially held
options?
Ms. Kicza. Yes, sir. I will be happy to do so.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. Our military obviously has an
acute need for accurate weather forecasting. It is my
understanding that because of budget constraints that we are
cancelling or proposing to abort a troubled weather satellite
program in the Department of Defense.
Can you tell us how what NOAA does relates to what DOD does
in the collecting of data for weather forecasting, how you
share this information to minimize cost? And are there assets
that NOAA has that could fill the gap that will be there
because the Pentagon is aborting this troubled weather
satellite program?
Ms. Kicza. Yes, sir. Let me talk for a minute about my
understanding of the situation. In the fiscal year 2012 budget
appropriations, DOD was instructed to terminate the contracts
associated with the DWSS, Defense Weather Satellite System. At
the same time they were given funds to explore the next system
in the wake of that. That is being conducted. They are
currently in the process of reevaluating the requirements and
conducting an analysis of alternatives. We are working in
conjunction with them.
For the weather satellite system, there are three orbits
that are of interest, and there have been traditional roles in
who handles each orbit now. The military handles the early
morning orbit. We rely on our partners, EUMETSAT, for the mid-
morning orbit and NOAA in partnership with NASA covers the
afternoon orbit. All of the information from these orbits is
available to all of the partners and as used in their weather
prediction systems. The predominant orbit for our weather
prediction is our orbit. When I say our, the United States is
the afternoon orbit, and that is made available to the DOD as
they do their weather predictions.
I will ask Mr. Murphy to augment.
Mr. Murphy. I would just add that the DOD also has two
spacecraft in the barn, so to speak. Their DMSP program has F-
19 and F-20, so they will fly that out into the 20s which
allows them the time to do the analysis of alternatives. So
they will be flying that morning orbit for a bit longer. So
this is not a crisis.
We do share data back and forth. We collaborate in many
forms, both in modeling and in sharing data.
Mr. Bartlett. Does DOD not have satellites in polar orbit?
Mr. Murphy. The DWSS, that was a polar orbiter. They do not
have geostationary.
Mr. Bartlett. I thought it was the polar orbiting
satellites that were compromising your forecasting?
Ms. Kicza. The DOD flies in the early morning orbit. Their
current satellite series is called the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program, the DMSP series of satellites. Those are
currently operational, and in fact, NOAA on a reimbursable
basis operates those satellites for DOD from our NOAA satellite
operations facility. What Mr. Murphy had indicated is that they
still have two on the ground, so they have got time before they
introduce their next generation and they are in an analysis of
alternatives mode right now for that is next generation
capability.
Mr. Bartlett. So you will not have lost all of your polar
orbiting satellites with this gap?
Ms. Kicza. No, sir, we will not. We will still have the DOD
early morning orbit, EUMETSAT, the European satellite is
covering the mid-morning orbit. Our concern is about the gap
for a period of time, the potential gap, for a period of time
between the NPP satellite, which we launched last October and
which is operating successfully on orbit now, and the first of
the JPSS satellites which is scheduled to launch in early 2017.
Mr. Bartlett. So we still have considerable data from polar
orbits but not all we would like? Is that where we are?
Ms. Kicza. We currently have a robust constellation in
orbit. We are concerned about the longevity of that
constellation in the 2016, 2017 timeframe.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Harris. Thank you, and I have one other brief
question, so I am going to yield myself 2 minutes, then I will
yield the Ranking Member.
Mr. Murphy, I have a question for you. With regards to
severe weather prioritization, the ones that a lot of average
Americans are worried about, the types of weather events that
cause loss of life, are polar orbiting satellites versus earth-
based measuring devices the best approach to improve
forecasting for those events? Because again, in the context,
you know, the budget kind of emphasized everything on these
polar orbiting satellites, but are they really the best way
versus earth-based?
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, as Ms. Kicza pointed out, the
JPSS or the polar orbiters provide the bulk of the forecast
model input. So where that is important is in the longer range,
2- to 5-day period. So they give us the ability to forecast
that there is going to be a severe weather outbreak in Missouri
in several days. That allows emergency managers and local
officials to prepare.
In terms of the warnings, that is when you really have to
depend on the in-situ or our primary tool which I mentioned was
the dual pole or the Doppler radar to issue our warnings.
Chairman Harris. And that is not obviously not polar
satellite based. Those are Earth-based.
Mr. Murphy. That is ground.
Chairman Harris. So in essence, if we want to maintain the
zero to two ay warning, then what we really need, we have to
make sure that our insight to techniques are state of the art?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
Chairman Harris. Okay, thank you. And I will yield two
minutes to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. A further question about the ground
observation platforms as you referred to them in your
testimony, the in-situ. The in-situ observation platforms are
scarce in polar and ocean environments, I assume, because they
require being in a fixed place, and the oceans and the ice in
the polar regions will not sit still for us. So is it possible
or cost-effective to actually have more in-situ observation
platforms in polar regions and oceans or are those problems
inseparable? I can't hear you.
Ms. Kicza. I said I will start and I will let Mr. Murphy
augment. The beauty of the satellite observations are that they
are global, so I guess literally you could do it but physically
it is nearly impossible to have the coverage with in-situ
buoys, and they, in and of themselves, require a lot of
maintenance and upkeep. So that presents a problem in and of
itself. But they are important in terms of their in-situ
capabilities. So as I said, they supplement, they augment, they
are complementary. Mr. Murphy, would you like to----
Mr. Miller. But they are not a replacement?
Ms. Kicza. They do not replace.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, and we pretty much depend on whoever owns
the territory to pretty much take care of the in-situ
observation. In the case of oceans, NOAA is looking at unmanned
water gliders, as they are called, to take ocean and
potentially some atmospheric observations in lieu of the buoys
that are a maintenance challenge. So I think we are doing what
we can and what is practical in very remote and hard-to-get-to
places.
Ms. Kicza. And I will offer one additional comment. There
are a number of buoys, and it is an international activity. The
Argo has on the order of 3,000 I believe. So it is not a small
number of buoys that are internationally shared, and the
satellites again provide the bent pipe communications path for
retrieving that data and then sending it down to where it needs
to go.
Mr. Miller. My time has expired.
Chairman Hall. [Presiding] The gentleman's time has
expired. Anybody else want to be heard? I want to thank the
panel for the very valuable testimony and the Members for their
questions. The Members of the Committee may have additional
questions for you. I would ask you to respond to those in
writing in a reasonable time. We would like to have them in
about two weeks if we could.
Let me note that the committee has not received NOAA's
written responses to follow-up questions asked of NOAA's Deputy
Administrator, Kathy Sullivan, after last September's hearing
on polar satellites. These questions were sent more than five
months ago. The delay is unacceptable, and we expect each of
the three witnesses here today to deliver a timely response to
these questions. Are you able to do that?
Ms. Kicza. Yes, sir.
Chairman Hall. I am going to recognize you for five
minutes. I am ready to go. They say no. Witnesses are excused.
May we have the second panel? The witnesses are excused, and we
thank you very much for your time. We will move to our second
panel.
Are you gentlemen ready to proceed? The first witness on
our second panel is Mr. Eric Webster, Vice President and
Director of Weather Systems, ITT Exelis. Mr. Webster directly
oversees Exelis weather and climate satellite instrument
business unit which includes instruments for NOVA, NASA,
geostationary and polar orbiting programs, NASA Earth Science
and international customers.
Our next witness is Dr. David Crain, Chief Executive
Officer of GeoMetWatch. Prior to his work with GeoMetWatch, Dr.
Crain was a Senior Program Manager at Space Dynamics Laboratory
where he oversaw the sensor development activity.
Our third witness, Mr. Bruce Lev, Vice Chairman of AirDat
LLC. Prior to this, he was Vice Chairman and Director of USCO
Logistics, which the business was sold to Global Freight,
formerly Kuehne & Nagle in 2001.
Our final witness, our last witness, is Dr. Berrien Moore,
Dean of the University of Oklahoma College of Atmospheric and
Geographic Sciences and the Director, National Weather Center.
Prior to joining the University of Oklahoma, Dr. Moore served
as Executive Director of Climate Central, a non-profit
organization based in Princeton, New Jersey, and Palo Alto,
California.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee have
five minutes each to ask questions. I now recognize our first
witness, Mr. Webster, to present his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. ERIC WEBSTER, VICE PRESIDENT,
DIRECTOR, WEATHER SYSTEMS, ITT EXELIS
Mr. Webster. Good afternoon, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member
Miller and staff, my name is Eric Webster, and I manage the
weather system business at ITT Exelis. I appreciate your
leadership and efforts to examine how NOAA procures data for
weather forecasting.
This is sort of a homecoming for me, Mr. Chairman, as I was
privileged to be a staffer on this committee for five years
under Chairman Boehlert and help lead the examinations into
NOAA's weather satellite programs. I then served in the George
W. Bush administration as NOAA's Head of Congressional Affairs
and the Senior Policy Advisor on weather satellites.
During that time, the committee conducted 12 NOAA satellite
oversight hearings, and I still have the scars to prove it.
My position at ITT Exelis has brought me full circle as now
I actually oversee the building of next generation instruments
for both GOES-R and the JPSS programs.
There are two major types of instruments flying in space in
two different orbits. To generalize, it is the imagers on
geostationary satellites flying 22,300 miles above the earth,
staring at the United States and taking pictures of clouds,
water vapor and gathering other information on the surface
which are critical to near-term severe weather forecasting.
The pictures that you see on TV or the internet of
hurricanes usually come from the imagers on geostationary
satellites. The sounding instruments on polar satellites fly
about 520 miles above the earth from pole to pole, taking
three-dimensional pictures of the atmospheric column from space
to near surface. Understanding the atmospheric column is
important because it where weather is created, it gets mixed,
it moves and it evolves. As was stated earlier, these
measurements are crucial to global weather models and for our
two to five day forecasts. So our ability to know several days
in advance of a potential tornado or a large snow event is
mostly because of polar sounders.
Our engineers and workers in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, have an
impressive record of building every imager and every sounder
for NOAA's legacy polar satellite programs since the 1970s,
including the next generation polar sounding instrument flying
today on NPP and for the JPSS program.
Our folks have also built every imager and every sounder
for NOAA's geostationary program since the 1990s, including the
advanced imager for GOES-R. That is a total of more than 50
instruments without one major systems failure. So if you will,
we are the Cal Ripkens of the space-based sensors, when he was
still at his prime.
As such, we also have some experience with the contracting
process. Requirements for observation systems should be driven
by scientific tools and experiments to maximize capabilities
and overall effectiveness. These tools, with proper oversight
and funding, can help prioritize unmet needs. However, they
will not fix many of the problems in the actual design and
procurement of observing systems. In the case of GOES-R,
systems requirements were determined over a course of a three-
year formulation phase involving industry teams and review team
of NASA and NOAA representatives. All the parties went through
an iterative process whereby industry did cost and performance
trades and presented the results back to NASA and NOAA.
For the GOES-R imager, the process works as requirements
remain stable, and we are in production on the first flight
unit expected to be delivered next year. But it took $100
million just in formulation studies and ten years to get here.
For the GOES-R sounder, the situation was different.
Requirements were never really solidified, and too many
competing priorities were being asked of one instrument. The
cost and development of the instrument and the cost and to
assimilate the data into user products kept growing. Thus, the
decision was made to cancel the geo-sounder instrument, and at
the time I believe it was the right decision.
NOAA and NASA must find ways to reduce the overall systems
cost as the current GOES-R and JPSS programs are likely
unsustainable. GOES-R is $8 billion for two satellites,
sensors, ground systems and operations. The imager, which is a
significant increase in technological capability, is less than
ten percent of the total program cost. The JPSS program is $13
billion for two main satellites, sensors, ground systems and
operations. While amortizing out to the mid-2020s can lessen
the sting of the total price tag, these costs are having a
tremendous effect on NOAA's missions today and probably
assuring no new observing systems, especially from space, can
be acquired.
In summary, space-based sensors are critical to weather
forecasting, both for global weather models and severe
warnings. NOAA should increase its use of scientific tools to
determine requirements, but more than ever, hard choices have
to be made. NOAA must examine different procurement models for
space-based sensors such as fixed price or modifying existing
instruments to meet requirements at lower costs and lower
risks. Given the difficulties in turning these requirements
into actual observing systems, NOAA will also have to rely more
on commercial capabilities into the future to improve weather
forecasts, whether it is advanced geo-sounders from space or
Mesonets from the ground.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webster follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. Mr. Webster, thank you. And did anybody ever
tell you that you kind of took on some of Mr. Boehlert's
expressions?
Mr. Webster. No, sir, but I appreciate the compliment.
Thank you.
Chairman Hall. You know, he was a Republican Chairman and I
was the Ranking Democrat then.
Mr. Webster. Yes, sir.
Chairman Hall. The book on us was that I kept him from
saving all the whales and hugging trees, and he kept me from
dribbling on cemeteries.
Mr. Webster. Yes, sir. That is true.
Chairman Hall. He was a good guy, hard working. Dr. Crain,
I will recognize you now for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID CRAIN
OF ERIC WEBSTER DAVID CRAIN,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GEOMETWATCH
Dr. Crain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee and the senior member for inviting me to testify
today. I am honored to discuss the role of geostationary
advanced sounding and how commercial approaches can help NOAA
meet the country's observational needs.
Today's budget and the programmatic challenges faced by
NOAA's satellite programs present a perfect opportunity to
implement commercial alternatives as a means to provide
essential data needed to improve severe weather forecasting. A
commercial approach, building on critical government technology
investments that have already been made, combined with private
industry and experienced universities, provides an affordable
means for NOAA to protect lives at a price the Nation can
afford. Commercial capabilities can complement existing and
future NOAA systems to provide the best value solution.
One way in which these private-sector capabilities can be
quantified and assessed is through the use of observing system
simulation experiments, as you have heard in previous
testimony. We encourage NOAA to carry out OSSE experiments to
validate the system that I will discuss today.
[Slide]
Dr. Crain. If you look at slide 1 just for background, our
current operational weather systems rely on technology
developed over 30 years ago. The current POES, DMSP and GOES
satellites were developed in the '80s and '90s. Part of the
rationale for both the JPSS, NPOESS and GOES-R programs was to
implement new technology that would dramatically improve the
capability to forecast and predict severe weather. Not just
continue with the old, implement new important technology.
One of the key technology improvements on both systems was
hyperspectral sounding. The role of sounders on both LEO and
GEO platforms is to produce the vertical profiles of
atmospheric water vapor, temperature and pressure.
Hyperspectral sounders dramatically increase the vertical
resolution accuracy of these profiles over previous sounders.
These profiles are the essential data products needed for every
forecast. In fact, Dr. Kathy Sullivan in previous testimony
before this committee stated that sounding data are the
essential lifeblood of weather forecasting.
For this and other reasons, the advanced hyperspectral
sounder was identified as a primary mission in the process
described by Eric when the GOES-R program was authorized. And
when it was authorized, it was originally slated to have two
primary instruments, an advanced imager and an advanced
sounder. The roles of the two instruments are complementary but
different. The imager tells you what the weather is going to be
now, the sounder tells you what the weather is going to be 6
hours from now.
Severe weather events that have occurred over the last
several years really underscore the benefits of the advanced
geostationary sounder, and they include extending warning times
from minutes to hours for tornados and thunderstorms avoiding
many of the 500 deaths we had in the 2011 season; improve
hurricane track and the intensity forecast; avoiding
unnecessary evacuations like we had with Irene and Rita;
improve the routing of aircraft, significantly reducing weather
delays for passengers, allowing the airlines to manage their
fuel and routing more efficiently. All of these are goals of
the next-gen FAA system.
All of these benefits can be reliably delivered by an
advanced sounder and geostationary orbit. Unfortunately, due to
the reasons that Eric described and for budgetary reasons and
other satellites, the advanced sounder was cancelled on GOES-R,
and NOAA did assess some alternatives to restore the capability
which included flying a full capability sounder, flying a
reduced legacy-like sounder, flying no sounder at all and
letting the European weather agency develop an advanced sounder
in purchasing either the data or the sounder from the
Europeans.
Compared to these options, we feel a commercial approach
can provide the needed data years earlier and with minimal cost
and risk. In 2010, GeoMetWatch applied for and received a
commercial remote sensing license from the Department of
Commerce to operate six hyperspectral imaging sounders. The
GeoMetWatch sounder will equal or exceed NOAA's requirements
and when flown over the United States will restore the full
benefits of the GOES-R sounding mission. This sounder will
provide continuous coverage for severe weather and vastly
improve our ability to predict tornados, hurricane landfall and
intensification. And as mentioned before by others, these
benefits can now be evaluated through a use of OSSEs which NOAA
can do.
Mr. Chairman, we at GeoMetWatch are excited about the
future of weather technology and the role of the private sector
to dramatically improve the ability of NOAA and the weather
service to predict severe weather in the United States. We
encourage NOAA to promptly undertake OSSE experiments to
validate the advantages of the geostationary system we have
described, and we would also encourage the committee to
consider legislation to clarify the authorities of NOAA and
clarify their ability to acquire meteorological data and
confirm the private sector's critical role in improving severe
weather forecasting while saving lives and strengthening our
economy. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Crain follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. Thank you, sir. I now recognize our third
witness, Mr. Bruce Lev, to present his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. BRUCE LEV,
VICE CHAIRMAN, AIRDAT LLC
Mr. Lev. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller and
Mr. Barlett, thank you all for inviting AirDat to testify
today. We are deeply grateful and honored to be part of this
panel. We are going to bring the conversation from 22,000 miles
up a little bit closer to the ground right now. We are pleased
to have a chance to talk about the need to improve weather
forecasting in this country.
As everyone knows, accurate and timely weather information
can save lives, reduce injuries, save the taxpayers billions of
dollars in costs that are sometimes associated with the
misallocation of resources attributable to inaccurate or
untimely weather forecasts.
In our view, the single most critical component of the
forecasting process is the ability to collect a vast quantity
of very accurate--and the phrase very accurate is significant--
lower-atmospheric observations with high space-time resolution.
Despite the numerous data collection systems deployed by NOAA,
it may not surprise anyone in this room, that our country is
still extremely under-sampled.
NOAA's forecast models are sophisticated, but the success
of even the most advanced forecasting system depends entirely
on the quality and quantity of the observations used as input.
Without accurate data from critical regions, even the most
cutting-edge computer models and the most talented forecasters
can be significantly limited in their ability to provide a
reliable forecast, particularly when the weather is volatile.
AirDat addresses this observational space-time deficiency
by deploying an atmospheric observing system called TAMDAR. The
TAMDAR system delivers unique real-time--emphasize real-time--
high-resolution meteorological data for improved analysis and
weather forecasting. The system is comprised of a multi-
function sensor, which has been installed on several hundred
currently flying commercial aircraft, real-time global
satellite communications, which provides aircraft tracking, and
computer processing, which rapidly extracts knowledge from
extremely large data sets. Important to note, TAMDAR was
developed in collaboration with NOAA, NASA and the FAA, and
could today augment the National Weather Service's important
balloon program.
The limited number of balloon sites in the United States--
we only have 69 launch sites and they only launch twice a day--
produces an average geographical data void of approximately
46,000 square miles and a temporal void of 12 hours, launching
only twice a day. This space-time observational data gap can
result in inaccurate and untimely forecasts.
In a four-year FAA funded NOAA data denial study, a term
you have heard earlier today, TAMDAR has been fully vetted by
NOAA and exceeds all of NOAA's rigorous quality assurance
standards. TAMDAR data are as accurate as balloon data, and the
study has demonstrated those data significantly improve weather
forecasting.
[Slide]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The displayed slide, which is before you and before the
audience, indicates the significant improvements concluded in
the four-year NOAA-conducted data denial study. Additionally,
the volume of TAMDAR data is approximately 40 times greater
than the balloon data at less than 1/10th of the cost per
sounding.
Mr. Chairman, our TAMDAR system has been fully operational
since 2005 and stands immediately ready to assist NOAA in
improving its weather forecasting. Thank you very much for
giving us an opportunity to chat with you today, and obviously
we would be delighted to answer any questions.
[Statement of Mr. Lev follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Harris. [Presiding] Thank you very much. I now
recognize our final witness, Dr. Moore, for five minutes to
present your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. BERRIEN MOORE, DEAN,
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF
ATMOSPHERIC AND GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES,
AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WEATHER CENTER
Dr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the importance
of continuing innovation to improve weather forecasting and
warning.
I am Dr. Berrien Moore, Vice President of Weather and
Climate Programs at the University of Oklahoma, as well as the
Director of the National Weather Center and Dean of the
University's College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences.
These positions are new for me. I have been at Oklahoma only
since June of 2010, and therefore, I am a later rather than a
Sooner.
I appear, today, largely because of my responsibilities as
the Director of the National Weather Center. However, this
said, the views expressed in today's testimony are my own.
I am very appreciative of this opportunity to discuss the
continuing need to use more sophisticated observational systems
to help improve weather forecasting by integrating state and
local surface data, known as mesoscale observations, or
Mesonets, to help protect life and property before severe
weather events, providing precious additional warning time that
can often mean the difference between life and death.
Weather is something that Oklahoma knows well. As a
consequence, it is not surprising that in 1990, the University
of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University joined forces with
the governor of the State of Oklahoma, with an investment of
approximately $3 million and deployed what today is a 120-
station statewide network, which includes detailed weather
observations in every one of Oklahoma's 77 counties. At each
site, the environment is measured by a set of instruments
located on a 10-meter tower, delivering observations every five
minutes, 24 hours a day year-round. We provide a state-of-the-
art observational weather system paid for and largely
maintained with non-federal funds, with a surface weather
observations that are reported more frequently and with more
localized predictive value than those provided by the National
Weather Service. Taken together, the data from the National
Weather Service and the Oklahoma Mesonet complement and
strengthen the predictive value of each network's information,
making for a powerful partnership. It is an ideal model in
these fiscally constrained times on how best to leverage
investment from multiple entities to maximize the delivery of
high quality information at a reasonable cost benefiting
taxpayers and communities that depend upon more accurate
weather forecasts.
But does this mean that we do not need weather satellites?
Certainly not. As important as the Oklahoma Mesonet is, it
tells us little about the Pacific Ocean. It tells us little
about the weather over Europe. Weather is global. The interests
of the United States, including its businesses and its citizens
are global, and hence the U.S. weather observing system must be
global. The weather observing system must be a network of
networks--satellites, aircraft, balloons, and ground-based
Mesonets.
The concept of a national Mesonet has been validated
scientifically on a number of occasions, most notably in the
path finding report issued in 2009 by the National Academy of
Sciences, From the Ground Up: A Nationwide Network of Networks.
I want to just single out two quotes. One, the report found,
``An overarching national strategy is needed to integrate
disparate systems from which far greater benefit could be
derived and to define the additional observations required to
achieve a true multi-purpose network at the national scope.''
And second, which is particularly relevant today, ``Several
steps are required to evolve from the current circumstance of
disparate networks to an integrated, coordinated network of
networks. First, it is necessary to firmly establish a
consensus among providers and users that a network of networks
will yield benefits in proportion to or greater than the effort
required to establish it. This consensus-building step is
essentially political.''
Last fall, NOAA launched a campaign called a Weather-Ready
Nation. Let me state clearly and for the record, America will
only become a weather-ready Nation if we increase the number of
observations used to make meteorological forecasting more
accurate and more precise and then work with the public and
local decision-makers to act upon those improved forecasts.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. Thank you all for
your testimony, reminding Members that committee rules limit
questioning to five minutes. The Chair will at this point open
the round of questions. I recognize myself for the first five
minutes.
Mr. Webster, your testimony stated that NOAA should
consider fixed price procurements for satellite instruments.
Why would fixed price be better than the current systems and
would ITT be willing to bid for fixed price instrument
contracts?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fixed price contracts
allow the contractors to set the requirements so we can build
an instrument in the most cost-effective way. It is usually
actually cheaper for the government because the risk and the
cost is borne by the company, not by the government. So you
don't have the dramatic increases in costs, or if you do, it is
the company's standpoint, not from the government's standpoint.
These are most effective when you have actually built,
developed an instrument already. Most companies wouldn't want
to do a development contract necessarily on a fixed price. But
once you have built one of an instrument, you should be more
able to reproduce them and manufacture them.
So from ITT's perspective, we have bid several contracts
for fixed price. We are taking copies of the U.S. instruments
and then making them for the international community. For
Japan, we are under contract currently right now with Japan.
That was a fixed price job. Hopefully Korea, potentially
Canada. So yes, we would certainly bid fixed price contracts.
Chairman Harris. Thank you. Dr. Moore, in your written
testimony, you state that, ``Because surface measurement
technologies have only matured over the last decade, NOAA has
built its observational forecasting largely on the basis of
information from satellites and radars, and I think you
summarized some of the most significant maturations and
improvements in surface measurement technologies. But what
findings might be uncovered with regard to the relative value
of those recently improved technologies if NOAA were to
increase its number of what are called the Observing Systems
Simulation Experiments, or OSSEs? I mean, do you think that we
would uncover the true relative value of those techniques?
Dr. Moore. Yes, I think we would, and as I pointed out in
my testimony, NOAA saw the wisdom of establishing ground base.
That is why there are 1,200 ground-based stations through a
program that cost about $5 billion. From the private sector,
you could increase that coverage to 8,000 stations at a
fraction of the cost.
Chairman Harris. So you believe that they should do more of
these simulation experiments----
Dr. Moore. Yes. Excuse me. I think they should, and they
should directly take into consideration what could be obtained
from this very dense network in 26 states with 8,000 locations.
Most of the ground-based systems that NOAA established were at
commercial airports because of the joint program with the FAA.
That doesn't necessarily get you the kind of coverage in the
State of Oklahoma that you need.
Chairman Harris. Sure. Thank you. Mr. Webster, again, you
mentioned NOAA should increase the use of simulation tools such
as OSSEs and the requirements for polar imagers should be a
candidate for reevaluation. Why do you think, if you do, that
NOAA should reexamine polar imagers when the VIIRS is now
flying and working on the NPP satellite?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in terms of
the costs and the continued technical risk of the instrument
that is flying today called VIIRS, unofficial estimates are
that it costs upwards of $1 billion to build the first one, and
estimates of the second one are several hundred million
dollars.
As I mentioned, ITT has built the legacy imager called
AVHRR which is about the size of a roll-on suitcase. We have
offered to modify the instrument to make it more capable,
probably for costs under $50 million.
So I think a study of what an enhanced AVHRR would provide
versus what the VIIRS provides for weather forecasting. There
are some capabilities on a climate perspective that VIIRS does
that we know our instrument probably couldn't do. But from a
weather forecasting mission, if we could do 85 or 90 percent of
that capability for less than 1/10 of the cost, I believe it is
at least worth a study.
Chairman Harris. A study. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Crain, could
you describe the potential of hyperspectral sounders to improve
our ability to protect against severe weather outbreaks such as
tornados and how does that potential compare to the severe
weather forecasting contributions of the polar orbiting
satellites?
Dr. Crain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The key advantage of
the geosystem is that it is stationary over the United States.
So a geostationary hyperspectral system over the United States
can continually monitor evolving severe weather, where a polar
orbiting will get a snapshot, six hours, 12 hours later we get
another snapshot, with no knowledge of the intervening time
period.
So in the case of advanced sounding, the JPSS has an
advanced sounder. It has a hyperspectral sounder. But it makes
one sample every 6 hours. In that same time period, a
geostationary hyperspectral could take tens to thousands of
soundings in the same region. So if we have emerging severe
weather, we can see its evolution with much more finer
resolution than we would see from the single or even multiple
polar satellites.
Chairman Harris. Well, thank you very much. I recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Crain, your testimony is that GeoMetWatch,
your company, is confident that you can avoid the problem of a
possible weather data gap and that you can launch late 2015 or
early 2016, which seems to be just in time to avoid the gap.
Given the problems that we have had, why is it that you feel
sure that your company can do so much better, launch earlier,
and what assurance do we have that you will be able to meet a
timeframe when other contractors have slipped their schedule?
Dr. Crain. Thanks for the question.
Mr. Miller. You have a launch vehicle line?
Dr. Crain. The situation that we are in right now, we
actually have a contractual agreement or an agreement to launch
our first satellite over Asia at 110 East which is
approximately over Japan in the 2015, 2016 time period. We
potentially have some slack in the schedule that we could also
accommodate a U.S. mission in roughly that same time period.
The reason we feel we can do this at a low cost and risk is
we are leveraging about $300 million of previous NASA and NOAA
investment in a hyperspectral sounder for GEO that was
developed through Langley and was built at Utah State
University. That instrument is the basis of our commercial
sounder, and we will be procuring that sounder under a fixed
price contract as described by Eric. So that is why we have
confidence that we can deliver it on time at a cost that is
known to us.
The other advantage of this approach is we are really only
responsible for building that sensor. We are teaming with a
large, commercial communications satellite provider and
operator in Asia. We are teaming with one of the largest
satellite bus manufacturers in the world, Tosolini North
America.
So we have a really good team that is going to bring their
best commercial practices to fore to help us do this on a
commercial basis.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Webster, ITT is obviously the prime
contractor for the satellite programs. Do you agree that a
stationary orbit satellite can provide the data that we are
looking for from the--orbiting satellites?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I think to clarify, the
gap that you talk about is in the polar orbiting.
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. Webster. So I think what Dr. Crain has been talking
about in terms of a geosounder would not get you that global
coverage that the polar sounder would give, but the increase in
capability would be most useful for U.S. severe storm
forecasting on a now-casting basis, as Dr. Crain said.
So I think the need of the potential gap in the polar orbit
is still going to be there.
Mr. Miller. It is undiminished. And have we had the same
problems with the stationary orbiting satellites that we have
had with the polar?
Mr. Webster. Historically, yes, if you go back 15 or 20
years. There was a huge shift in technology from an actually
spinning satellite to one that was three-axis stabilized so it
could actually stare at the United States. That was in the late
'80s when ITT actually first started building the instruments.
So we haven't been the prime contractor, we have been the
prime instrument provider for the companies. The current GOES
program is up and working well, and we are working on the next
generation of instruments right now. And so far, we are still
on schedule.
Costs have been growing in the program, but it is also
because of technical changes that the government has wanted
along with some issues we have had on our end. But we are still
within the overall scope that NOAA has budgeted for the
program.
Mr. Miller. Okay. And I am sure the testimony of the first
panel about the way in which the data from various sources
complements each other. Do you believe that the polar orbiting
satellite's data can be replaced, can be done without, with
additional stationary orbit satellites or further ground
sensors?
Mr. Webster. I think, you know, in terms of what Dr. Crain
has been trying to propose with GeoMetWatch, if they had six
geostationary sounders that circled the globe, you could get
that type of coverage. One or two would not get you the global
data that is critical to the global forecast models, and as
Mary Kicza had mentioned, 90 percent of the data in the
forecast models is satellite-based data, and most of that comes
from polar sounders because it actually gets the global
coverage.
In terms of Mesonets or in-situ measurements, they are very
critical for the finer resolution models and near-term
forecasting. So again, the polar sounders, important for two to
five day forecasts to tell you where severe weather might be in
the southeast or in North Carolina, you might get a tornado in
a couple of days. But as you get closer to that actual warning
and forecast, that is when your radars and your Mesonets and
your in-situ measurements come into a much higher fidelity.
As Mr. Murphy mentioned, from the National Weather Service,
the forecaster uses the model to set the parameters and then as
he is forecasting uses all the in-situ data to actually provide
the warnings. So the difference is between the general forecast
versus the actual warning.
Mr. Miller. My time is expired.
Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. I now recognize the
other gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, sir. Could we not place geospatial
satellites in orbit such that they could stare at all the
earth? We, I gather, have the orbiting satellites because they
provide a more detailed look at weather, and so it provides us
data in more detail. I gather we are looking at things from
four different perspectives, one from way out there, 22,000
miles, and from 500 miles, and then we have a lot of ground-
based stations. I remember several years ago I was working with
our schools, many of which have weather stations, many of them
collecting data as good as the weather collected at the
airport. And since, as you mentioned, in Oklahoma you don't
have airports in enough places to really provide wide coverage.
I don't know, can't remember now, how we failed to get NOAA to
look at these schools because there are many thousands of these
across the country, and with a little coaching they could
provide I would think much more detailed and broadly disbursed
data input from the ground.
But then we have that mid-level that Mr. Lev talked about
in his testimony, and that is between the ground and those 500-
mile satellites, and we collect a little bit of data there with
a few balloons that we send up from what, only 63 places and
then only twice a day? So there are huge gaps in coverage, both
in time and spatial coverage with that.
Mr. Lev, I understand the use of your technology, TAMDAR,
does not just produce relatively better weather forecasting but
dramatically better weather forecasting. Is that correct?
Mr. Lev. The slide we had up when I was giving my formal
testimony, Mr. Bartlett, and thank you for the question,
reflects the conclusions that NOAA itself derived from its own
data denial study conducted over four years which was actually
funded by the FAA, having considerable interest in high-
resolution, highly accurate weather forecasts. Those results
from a classic data denial study, when we had many fewer
aircraft flying than we have today, indicated that in the
significant meteorological parameters, particularly moisture
which is a key driver of short-term weather forecasts, that we
improve the reliability and accuracy of forecasts by up to 50
percent, 5-0 percent. Those are certainly, from our perspective
and I think at the time NOAA's GSD division, considerably
surprising and much greater than anyone thought might be the
case. It turns out that as we add more aircraft and improve the
type of modeling we are doing in terms of ingesting data, the
reliability and accuracy has actually improved beyond 50
percent in many respects.
Mr. Bartlett. I gather that your technology simply
hitchhikes on the planes that are there anyhow for other
purposes?
Mr. Lev. That is correct. One of the key issues in getting
more data in the lower atmosphere if you will is you can't fly
more balloons. They do get in the way of airplanes, and we have
a lot more airplanes today than we had when the balloon program
started almost 75 years ago. The only way to get good data, and
that is what is critical is good, accurate data, is to
hitchhike on aircraft, and that is what we do. We are in fact
flying balloons, but we don't get in the way of anyone else,
and we send that data in real time. It doesn't take 90 minutes
to collect the data that is collected by the balloons, the
radio sounds, as they rise into the atmosphere.
Mr. Bartlett. How big are these devices and how much do
they compromise the vehicle in which they are attached?
Mr. Lev. In the commercial configuration, the entire system
weighs well under 10 pounds, thus it doesn't compromise the
aircraft in any shape, form or manner, which is why 10 or more
airlines have been delighted to have us install on their
commercial aircraft. In an unmanned aerial vehicle
configuration, and we have been flying on drones to comment on
something that was offered up earlier in other testimony, we
are down to I think about a pound or less with special
materials, carbon fiber and the like. It is actually nominal, a
non-event with respect to size, shape or weight.
Mr. Bartlett. What vehicle do you use for transmitting this
data to where it is processed?
Mr. Lev. The data comes off the sensor installed on the
aircraft and is immediately sent in real time to the Iridium
Satellite Network, a relatively well-known satellite network
used both commercially and by the Department of Defense, by the
way, sent in real time to our processing center, but could be
sent anywhere on the planet, including to NOAA's processing
centers if they so choose.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
the witnesses for your valuable testimony and again for your
patience as we started late, and the Members for their
questions. The Members of the Committee may have additional
questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in
writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments from Members. The witnesses are excused.
Thank you all for being here today. The hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ms. Mary Kicza, Assistant Administrator, National
Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for
Research Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes, Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research, NOAA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. John Murphy, Chief, Programs and Plans Division,
National Weather Service, NOAA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Eric Webster, Vice President and Director,
Weather Systems, ITT Exelis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. David Crain, Chief Executive Officer, GeoMetWatch
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Bruce Lev, Vice Chairman, AirDat LLC
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Berrien Moore, Dean, University of Oklahoma College of
Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences, and Director, National Weather
Center
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted Materials by Mr. Bruce Lev, Vice Chairman, AirDat LLC
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]