Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70007275

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) space to ground mission data architecture

Jack L. Nelson·J.A. Ames·J. Williams·R. Patschke·C. Mott·J. Joseph·H. Garon·G. Mah
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) is a scientific endeavor to extend the longest continuous multi-spectral imaging record of Earth's land surface. The observatory consists of a spacecraft bus integrated with two imaging instruments; the Operational Land Imager (OLI), built by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation in Boulder, Colorado, and the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), an in-house instrument built at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Both instruments are integrated aboard a fine-pointing, fully redundant, spacecraft bus built by Orbital Sciences Corporation, Gilbert, Arizona. The mission is scheduled for launch in January 2013. This paper will describe the innovative end-to-end approach for efficiently managing high volumes of simultaneous realtime and playback of image and ancillary data from the instruments to the reception at the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Landsat Ground Network (LGN) and International Cooperator (IC) ground stations. The core enabling capability lies within the spacecraft Command and Data Handling (C&DH) system and Radio Frequency (RF) communications system implementation. Each of these systems uniquely contribute to the efficient processing of high speed image data (up to 265Mbps) from each instrument, and provide virtually error free data delivery to the ground. Onboard methods include a combination of lossless data compression, Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) data formatting, a file-based/managed Solid State Recorder (SSR), and Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) forward error correction. The 440 Mbps wideband X-Band downlink uses Class 1 CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP), and an earth coverage antenna to deliver an average of 400 scenes per day to a combination of LGN and IC ground stations. This paper will also describe the integrated capabilities and processes at the LGN ground stations for data reception using adaptive filtering, and the mission operations approach fro- the LDCM Mission Operations Center (MOC) to perform the CFDP accounting, file retransmissions, and management of the autonomous features of the SSR.

Explore related subjects

Conference Paper

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jack L. Nelson, J.A. Ames, J. Williams, R. Patschke, C. Mott, J. Joseph, H. Garon, G. Mah. 2012. Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) space to ground mission data architecture. https://doi.org/10.1109/aero.2012.6187391

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Authoritative knowledge infrastructure for GeoAI: Implications for scientific spatial data providers

Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) increasingly relies on automated analysis of authoritative geospatial data, exposing limitations in data infrastructures originally designed for simple dissemination rather than for knowledge-driven use. From the perspective of scientific spatial data providers, the challenge is enabling GeoAI responsibly while retaining semantic clarity, provenance, reproducibility, and governance. This short paper (i) examines how GeoAI exposed limitations within existing geospatial data infrastructures, and (ii) identifies provider-side requirements for an authoritative knowledge infrastructure. Drawing on GIScience, scientific workflow, and operational AI literature, the paper outlines implications for national mapping organizations that seek to support advanced analytics without jeopardizing scientific rigor or stewardship responsibilities.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2026

Springs of the Catskill Mountains: A conduit flow system in predominantly siliciclastic strata

The Catskill Mountains of New York state are composed of thick sequences of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone that are intercalated with thin beds of paludal limestone and calcareous mudstone. Sandstones often contain rip-up clasts of calcareous material at their bases and contain minor amounts of carbonate cement throughout their mass. This minor amount of calcareous material weathers out to produce thin zones of solutional porosity and permeability integrated within perched aquifers that feed perennial hillslope springs. Solutional features are evident within thin carbonate lenses and along fractures in sandstones, occasionally resulting in explorable cave-sized conduits. This study focuses on the behavior of bedrock springs and seeps in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin above the Neversink Reservoir. Bedrock springs are numerous throughout the Catskill Mountains and serve to provide baseflow to the headwater streams that tends to be more persistent during dry times than other baseflow sources. We observed dissolution-influenced conduits within the bedrock, and suffosional conduits within unconsolidated materials. Continuous water temperature at six springs was monitored at hourly intervals from May to October 2022 to investigate the thermal response of groundwater to daily and seasonal changes in air temperature along with event-based meteorological events. Temperature monitoring was augmented at some springs with time-lapse photography to evaluate persistence of flow. The thermal responses of springs to precipitation events were highly variable across sites, with some springs exhibiting flashy responses indicating a strong connection to the surface, while other springs showed muted or no thermal response to events. The seasonal thermal response also varied across sites having lag times of 23-48 days between peak air temperature and peak spring water temperature. The water temperatures and geochemical compositions of these bedrock springs support a conceptual model of multiple residence times, showing both event and seasonal groundwater storage within the conduit flow system that feeds the springs of the Catskill Mountains.

New York↗
USGS2026

Stability changes after weak layer collapse: Insights from an unexpected dataset

While conducting avalanche mitigation or traveling through the backcountry, avalanche professionals sometimes experience a "whumpf": a collapse-mode crack accompanied by surface cracking that does not produce an avalanche. These whumpfs are a clear warning sign of instability in the surrounding terrain. But assessing the collapsed slope itself, if it is steep enough to avalanche, carries much more uncertainty. Can slopes that whumpf and are steep enough to slide still avalanche? The answer to this question supports avalanche mitigators and ski guides in assessing whether to open such slopes. Previous research on collapsed slopes is limited to one study conducted before tests that estimate crack propagation propensity, such as the Propagation Saw Test (PST), were developed. This work showed that weak layer shear strength decreased immediately after collapsing and then increased over time. However, no research has examined crack propagation propensity after a whumpf. Studying propagation propensity is key for assessing how whumpfs immediately affect slope stability. To improve our understanding of changes in propagation propensity following weak layer collapse, we conducted PSTs on a test slope in the hours and days after an unexpected collapse occurred on a layer of surface hoar. Two PSTs at our study site three days prior to this collapse provided an estimate of weak layer propagation propensity. PST cut lengths decreased immediately following the collapse, suggesting that the collapse increased the propagation propensity. However, over the next 4-5 hours, PST cut lengths steadily increased at our site, likely due to ongoing sintering and strengthening in the collapsed weak layer. By the end of day two, we were no longer able to initiate propagation, suggesting substantial stabilization of the weak layer. Our results support prior findings and observations suggesting that slopes may remain capable of producing avalanches immediately after a collapse but likely stabilize over the next day or two. Although this research does not provide answers about precisely when a slope becomes stable after a collapse, it does highlight uncertainties in our understanding and interpretation of the stability of slopes that have whumped.

Montana↗