1 / 9

Summary of InSARProc 2008 July 28-31, 2008 Stanford University

Summary of InSARProc 2008 July 28-31, 2008 Stanford University. Sponsored by NASA. Howard Zebker, Eric Fielding, Paul Lundgren. Workshop Purpose and Approach. Assess capabilities of the international geophysical community to produce InSAR data products

Download Presentation

Summary of InSARProc 2008 July 28-31, 2008 Stanford University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Summary ofInSARProc 2008July 28-31, 2008Stanford University Sponsored by NASA Howard Zebker, Eric Fielding, Paul Lundgren

  2. Workshop Purpose and Approach • Assess capabilities of the international geophysical community to produce InSAR data products • Define needs and capabilities of next-generation processing systems • Set standards and structure for new InSAR processor development • Organized by a Steering Committee, who invited to attend, radar processing experts from around the world • Working meeting, much time set aside for technical comparison of products from a variety of processing packages available to the science community • Looking for better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of current processing approaches and specific recommendations for future software development

  3. Working sessions – code intercomparison • All participants ported codes to Stanford CEES computer center to facilitate comparison • Data sets analyzed: • data set 1 – ERS – Bay Area • data set 2 – Envisat • data set 3 – ALOS T473-Sichuan Earthquake (multi-frame, multi-swath) • data set 4 – ALOS full polarimetry, Hawaii • data set 5 – ALOS Amazon data pair • Products generated • radar coordinate products: amplitude, phase, correlation, phase with terrain correction, unwrapped phase • geocoded products: amplitude, phase, deformation, correlation • other products: e.g. masked phase, phase gradient, others as desired

  4. Packages and methods assessed • DORIS – Andy Hooper and Rob Mellors • Stanford InSAR – Howard Zebker • SIOSAR – David Sandwell • GMTSAR – Rob Mellors • ROI_PAC – Eric Fielding and Paul Rosen • Stacking interferograms – Yuri Fialko • Persistent scattering – Piyush Agram • SBAS – Riccardo Lanari • Atmospheric effects – Matt Pritchard and Mark Simons • ScanSAR – Sean Buckley • Polarimetry – Howard Zebker

  5. Sample ROI_PAC slide

  6. Sample DORIS slide

  7. Primary Recommendations • Precise and well-characterized products • Flexible and extensible modular code to encourage modification and improvement by the user community (open-source) • Comprehensive set of user documentation.

  8. Secondary recommendations • The software should be portable, thus with a small and light footprint • The new codes should be open source in the sense that they should be available to anyone for inspection, use, modification, and redistribution • The code should be thoroughly tested, debugged, pass benchmarks, and verified • Results should be readily reproducible and repeatable • The package should follow defined, standardized products with clear coordinates

  9. Ongoing actions • Self-organize this InSARProc group for the short-term • Document what has happened at this workshop. Report delivered to NASA. • Discuss the possibility of a long-term life to this InSAR workshop, with the most likely choice be a second meeting a year from now. An interim meeting to assess changes to the existing ROI_PAC software may be warranted in six months time. • There is a possibility of working with UNAVCO to better coordinate with WInSAR. • For future meetings, there is a great benefit from collaboration between American and European developers. This was very helpful in this workshop. • Recommend NASA/NSF (and USGS, etc.) commitment to developing community code, in particular investigate the possibility of funding by NASA and/or NSF for processor development for InSAR and international satellites with specific attributes in the development, as discussed above. Also, recommend that ESA/ESF and European national space agencies such as ASI explore involvement in these activities. • Investigate the possibility of long-term computing support through CEES to facilitate ready comparison of new algorithms and products, or other formal benchmarking subgroup and facilities.

More Related