| Date: | 1996-10-11 22:00:00 | |
| Sender: | Mike Pearlman <[Mailed Mike <PEARLMAN@cf1.harvard.edu>]> | |
| Subject: | [SLR-Mail] No. 27: Workshop Session on the Evaluation of SLR Network | |
| Author: | Mike Pearlman | |
| Content: | ******************************************************************************** SLR Electronic Mail 1996-10-11 22:00:00 UTC Message No. 27 ******************************************************************************** Author: Mike Pearlman Subject: Workshop Session on the Evaluation of SLR Network Performance (or How do we do better!) At the Workshop for Laser Ranging Instrumentation in Shanghai in November, we are scheduling a session on the Evaluation of SLR Performance. It will be held on Monday afternoon, November 11. The motivation for this session is to evaluate (1) how well we are meeting the current scientific and applications needs of our users and (2) how we can improve SLR network performance to meet both current and future needs. The session is being scheduled to follow directly the Science Achievements and Applications Session in the morning which will discuss scientific and applications requirements and quantify data needs in terms of data quantity, quality, and geographic and temporal distribution. At the afternoon session. we plan to cover the following topics: 1. Who is using the SLR data? What science and engineering applications are they studying? What satellites are they using? Is the data sufficient? What is missing? 2. How good is the SLR performance? How do we evaluate it? What is important? What is not important? Assessment from the Operations Centers. Do they provide anything that you should not already have at your station? Evaluation from the Analysis Centers. How do they estimate the biases and separate biases from other errors? 3. How do the stations provide quality control? How do they evaluate their data? How much do they rely on the on-site processes? How much do they rely on the analysis centers? 4. How do we ”baseline” these stations? What performance should be considered (a) significant and (b) minimum level? 5. What do stations need to improve performance - on site and from the global infrastructure? This is a very ambitious agenda and we will need everybody´s help to do an effective job. We will have one or more speakers to help lead off the discussions in each area, but each station should come prepared with the following: 1. What is new with your station since the last Workshop? Focus primarily on items that have improved the quality and quantity of your data. (one viewgraph only) 2. What do you do at your stations to assure the quality of the data? How do you get an evaluation of your data quality? (one viewgraph only) (a) from on-site operational sources (calibration, short arc fit, etc.) ? (b) from off-site sources ( analysis feedback, etc.) ? 3. What improvements or additions to (a) on-site capabilities and (b) off-site capabilities would help you monitor and improve the performance of your station. Bring some recent examples of performance anomalies at your stations (both obvious errors and subtle effects are welcome - bring at least one of each!). How did you diagnose them? What did you do about them? Please come prepared to join the discussion. This is a workshop, not a formal seminar. This is the place to share your experience with the other stations. Everyone can benefit. Dr. Michael R. Pearlman Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden St. Cambridge MA 02138 tel. (617) 495-7481 fax. (617) 495-7105 e-mail. mpearlman@cfa.harvard.edu [Mailed From: ”Mike” ******************************************************************************** |