We wish to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding this recommendation. In other words, this interface toolmust be available in time for user feedback to make a difference before thelaunch of AM-1. Further, they should take careful note of lessonslearned from the EOS experience. We cannot agreewith or condone this direction. Flexibility brings to the users options for obtaining data and services.
Innovation enables the system torapidly incorporate new technologies and new services.
And finally, robustness guarantees that the system will be able to provide adequate services in case offailure of any one component. In addition, we have learned that the L0 processing contract for EOS has been quite successful. Data processing needs to be under the authority and responsibility of those that understand the data. The concept of a centralsolution, possibly implemented by a single contractor, to meet the disparateneeds of processing, quality control, browsing and distributing Levels 2 orhigher science data to oceanographers, planetary geologists, andastrophysicists does not seem to us to be practical nor likely to besuccessful. While weconsider the source, there does seem to be a problem and we suggest that thebudget trimming process could be made more rational by giving the scientific community more visibility into the process by which cost containment decisions are reached.