1. IceBridge Science Team Meeting September 27, 2010 Goddard Space Flight Center

2. Welcome and Introduction Michael Studinger IceBridge Project Scientist

3. Agenda - AM Ice Bridge Science Team Meeting September 27, 2010 Agenda 0830 Welcome and Introduction (M. Studinger) 0840 IceBridge Program overview (Tom Wagner) Project Goals, Organization and Functional Relationships 0900 ICEsat Project Summary – Zwally, Markus, Neumann IceBridge contributions to ICEsat1/2 science, planning and links to Cryosat 0930 Science team: Objectives, Responsibilities and Terms-of-Reference (Jezek and Richter Menge) 0945 Brief presentation (one slide) by each science team member as per their proposal: 1) year 1 contributions to project 2) longer term research activities using Icebridge data 1030 Break 1045 Review of IceBridge Instrumentation (Studinger, Instrument team leader?) 1100 Discussion about the unique role of airborne measurements using the Icebridge instrument suite for terrestrial ice and sea ice studies. Review of the Icebridge implementation experience so far. (Koenig and Martin) In what situations are airborne measurements the optimum choice? How can they best be used to complement current and near future satellite instruments? Is there sufficient coverage of critical geographic areas in the context of the icebridge mission, 1200 Working Lunch: Discuss approaches to increase broader community involvement in identifying applications and leveraging opportunities Break out into separate sea ice and ice sheet discussion groups for:

4. Agenda - PM 1300 Discussion of primary science-objective priorities in the context of the unique Icebridge aircraft and instrumentation capabilities - Rignot and Kwok Parameter focus (measure ice sheet dh/dt; glacier ice/sea ice flux)?? and/or Process focus (measure and model key glaciers to understand how processes at the surface, margin, and bed are driving change; sea ice ice-shelf interactions)?? and/or Climate focus (understand the response of terrestrial and sea ice to climate forcings by providing tailored data for GCM scale modeling and sea level rise prediction?)?? and/or Operational focus (consider capacity to support short-term forecasts in support of marine shipping operations) 1400 Based on science prioritization and an assessment of optimum airborne capabilities, begin a review of the level 1 science requirements as now tabulated (Jezek and Richter Menge) 1500 Break Reconvene entire group 1515 Brief Summary of Science Prioritization and Requirements (Richter-Menge and Jezek) 1530 List of tasks, assign responsibilities and develop a schedule for quantitatively justifying the science requirements and fulfilling project tasks. (Jezek) 1630 Review of action items (Jezek) 1700 Close

5. IceBridge Program Overview Tom Wagner IceBridge Program Scientist

6. Program Goals The first phase of IceBridge will include the following: Making airborne altimetry measurements over the ice sheets and sea ice to extend the record of observations begun by ICESat. Linking the measurements made by ICESat, ICESat-2, and CryoSat-2 to allow accurate comparison and production of a long-term, ice altimetry record. Using airborne altimetry to monitor key, rapidly changing areas of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic to maintain a long term observation record, improve understanding of glacial dynamics, and improve predictive models of sea level rise and sea ice cover. In conjunction with altimetry measurements, collecting other remotely sensed data to improve predictive models of sea level rise and sea ice cover, especially the following: – Ice thickness and structure; – Bed topography underlying land-based ice; – Bathymetry beneath floating ice shelves; – Snow accumulation and firn structure; and – Other geophysical constraints that will improve estimates of the geothermal and oceanic heat flux. Monitoring important areas of sea ice for understanding present and future changes in sea ice cover and thickness. Adapting existing instruments for airborne remote sensing of ice by unmanned aerial systems such as NASA’s Global Hawk.

7. Science Team Responsibilities IceBridge ROSES 1) Final development of the IceBridge Science Definition Document and Level-1 Scientific Requirements Document; 2) Evaluation of the IceBridge mission designs in achieving the goals defined by the Science Definition Document and Level-1 Scientific Requirements Document as requested by the NASA Program Scientist; and 3) Support to the IceBridge Program Scientist and Project Scientist in the development of the required analyses, documentation, and reporting during the IceBridge mission.

8. IceBridge Contribution to ICESat 1-2 J. Zwally, T. Markus, T. Neumann ICESat Project Scientists

9. IceBridge and ICESat 1-2 1) How can Ice Bridge instruments and flight lines benefit the scientific analysis of existing ICEsat-1 data? 2) How can Ice Bridge data collections enhance the science transition from ICEsat-1 to ICEsat-2? 3) How do you think Ice Bridge data could help tie together ICESat 1/2 and Cryosat science? 4) How can Ice Bridge data best aid planning for ICESat 2? 5) Incorporate ICESat 1/2 project needs into a decision matrix for IceBridge flight planning

10. Science Team Objectives K. Jezek and J. Richter-Menge Science Team Co-leads

11. IceBridge Science Team Primary Function Science Priorities Evaluation Level 1 Requirements Flight Lines Data Collection

12. Science Team Meeting Objectives 1) Review science team project responsibilities and team member project contributions. 2) Understand functional relationships between the science team and other Icebridge project elements (eg Science Working Group). 2) Review the over-arching science themes presented in the draft project plan? How will Icebridge measurements complement existing ICEsat-1 research, ongoing Cryosat-2 research, and planned ICEsat-2 research as well as supporting measurement continuity? 3) Review and begin to refine the draft level 1 science requirements. Start to develop a quantitative basis for the requirements. Is there traceability from the science requirements back to the science themes and sensor continuity goals? What the science mission success criteria? 4) Establish a science team schedule of deliverables.

13. Project Tasks for Discussion 1.Complete the writing of official IceBridge Level 1 requirements and science contribution to project plan (Science definition document); 2.Construct flight lines with science justification for each campaign; 3.Begin with planning for the Greenland experiment where constraints introduced 4. by P-3 weight limits must be considered. 5.Develop a mission continuity/sensor inter-calibration plan 6. Establish a prioritized check list for selecting ice bridge flight lines (and lead instruments) in the context of mission continuity, parameter studies, process studies, prediction models. Can we assign rough percentages of time to be allocated to each of these focus areas? 7.In collaboration with the instrument team establish a policy for instrument upgrades/additions 8.In collaboration with the data science working group, monitor data availability and quality. 9.Develop a data policy for ground over-flights. This is becoming more and more an issue. 10.Assess the need to capture seasonal variations (ice sheets) and if required develop a strategy for data acquisition. 11.Develop a strategy for quick response to calving events etc.

14. Science Team Member Summaries

15. Kenneth Jezek, Science Team Member Byrd Polar Research Center The Ohio State University jezek.1@osu.edu 614 292 7973 jezek.1@osu.edu Project Responsibilities Year 1: Science Team lead for ice sheets Update Science requirements contribution to science plan Develop calibration Validation plans Oversee flight planning for Greenland and Antarctica Foster discussion about hypothesis driven missions Year 2 Science Team Member Evaluate options for moving from nadir ice sounding measurements to swath measurements of ice thickness and basal reflectivity. Radar data validation Contribute to flight planning Year 3 Science Team Member Radar data validation Contribute to flight planning Assist with an evaluation of Icebridge progress in fulfilling science requirements Research Goals with DLR Year 1 Investigate TSX and R2 polarimetric applications to ice sheet surface properties Begin using TSX velocities to compute mass fluxes from Antarctic outlet glaciers. Year 2 Combine IceBridge topography and thickness data with TSX velocities to identify the important stresses controlling outlet glacier flow Year 3 Conclude measurements of outlet glacier stress patterns and determine what insight these provide for future ice sheet behavior Dana Floricioiu, Proposal Partner German Aerospace Center Remote Sensing Technology Institute Tel: +49 8153 28 1763 dana.floricioiu@dlr.de dana.floricioiu@dlr.de IceBridge Observations of Fast Glaciers of the Polar Ice Sheets

16. Optimizing Airborne Observations of Sea Ice Thickness and Snow Depth through the Integration of Additional Data Sets Jackie Richter-Menge and Thorsten Markus Goal : Optimize IceBridge sea ice results by leveraging other national and international activities and assets Specific objectives: Identify potential cal/val opportunities Interface with in-situ data collection efforts to: i) Optimize types of variables collected and the data management ii) Optimize measurement strategies addressing differences in spatial and temporal scales Sea Ice Team Leader: Oversee team efforts to provide expert scientific guidance in areas of flight line planning, measurement strategies, data quality control, and data product development Update IceBridge Level 1 requirements (complete by 12/2010) Consider operational (versus climatological) applications

17. R. Kwok – IceBridge Science Team Member Service as a member of the IceBridge Science Team (IST) member Specifically, as a science team member, I will provide scientific input to the IceBridge project in the areas of flight line planning, measurement strategies, data quality control, and data product development. I will contribute to: a)the development of the IceBridge Science Definition Document and Level-1 Scientific Requirements Document; b)the evaluation of the IceBridge mission designs in achieving the goals defined by the Science Definition Document and Level-1 Scientific Requirements Document; and c)support to the IceBridge Program Scientist and Project Scientist in the development of the required analyses, documentation, and reporting during the IceBridge mission. Utilizing the IceBridge data for sea ice investigations With the over-arching goal of establishing, extending, and linking the ICESat-I sea ice thickness estimates through the CryoSat-2 mission to the launch of ICESat-II (~2015), I plan to use the IceBridge data for the following purposes: Compare/cross-calibrate the ICESat-I freeboard and thickness data with the IceBridge estimates acquired during the Spring of 2009. Assess the use of IceBridge flight lines for estimates of the changes in the Arctic Ocean ice cover in the absence of basin-scale coverage. Examine the use of the snow depth radar for providing estimates of snow depth and snow loading along co- incident lidar and radar flight lines. Explore the utility of the IceBridge acquisitions for characterization of the Southern Ocean ice cover. Ron Kwok Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove Dr Pasadena, CA 91109 email: ron.kwok@jpl.nasa.govron.kwok@jpl.nasa.gov Ph: 818 354-5614 Cell: 818 359-48

18. Investigation of optimal flight lines for bedrock sampling Specific objectives are to investigate with a full Stokes model: 1.what matters? Assess the influence of variations in basal topography and slipperiness on ice flow. 2.how well? Assess the spatial sampling required to capture the bedrock information. Sophie Nowicki NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 614.1, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771. E: sophie.nowicki @ nasa.gov Tel: 301.614.5458 Goal: Investigate the type of bedrock features that IceBridge measurements should aim to capture for ice sheet models. As a science team member, I will also interface with the ice sheet modeling community (ex: SeaRISE group) and CryoSat2 group.

19. Ron Lindsay, sea ice team Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory University of Washington Planned contributions to the team include: Help with flight line planning, data evaluation, snow depth measurements, and data formatting and distribution recommendations. Use model simulations to evaluate the ability of specific flight lines to answer specific science questions and evaluate their potential to improve sea ice predictions. Add IceBridge sea ice thickness data to the new Unified Sea Ice Thickness Climate Data Record (psc.apl.uw.edu/sea_ice_cdr) so it is readily available alongside submarine, moored, ICESat-1and other airborne measurements. Use all the ice thickness data, including those from IceBridge, to form a calibrated ice thickness data record that is complete in time and space, effectively interpolating the sparse observations to all locations within the Arctic ocean.

20. Eric Rignot, Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine Use IceBridge data (ice thickness and laser altimetry) to complete the estimation of grounding line fluxes around Antarctica and Greenland and assess their contribution to sea level change. Use IceBridge gravity-derived (+thickness) bathymetry and other data to calculate ocean temperature, salinity and submarine ice-shelf melt rates and tidewater glacier fronts using the MITgcm to better document ocean thermal forcing on ice sheets. Develop an improved understanding of ongoing changes in northwest Greenland and Pine Island Bay, Antarctica using numerical ice sheet models constrained by IceBridge data (laser, thickness, gravity) to provide better guidelines for future IceBridge data collection.

21. IceBridge Observations of Sea Ice Thickness, Structure, and Volume Change: Bringing a NOAA Viewpoint PI: Dave McAdoo Co-I: Laurence N. Connor, Collaborators: S.L. Farrell, P. Clemente-Colon Science Focus: IceBridge can augment the exploitation of ICESat and Envisat and now the nascent Cryosat-2 time series of sea ice freeboard observations to better estimate ice structure and thickness in the Arctic Ocean and in the Antarctic. IceBridge will enhance the utility of synoptic mappings of Arctic sea ice observations provided now and in the near future by Envisat and CryoSat-2, and in the recent past by ICESat. Strategy Specifics: (1) Continue annual repeat series of Enivsat RA-2 IceBridge underflight lines that began in 2006 in the eastern Canada Basin [Figure A] (2) Build annual repeat time series of CryoSat-2 underflights which began with IceBridge observations of April 20, 2010 [Figure B] (3) Maintain annual repeat series similar to (1) and (2) above along ICESat-1 line in the Canada Basin (northern Beaufort Gyre region) (4) Reprocess IceBridge Sanders gravity in (1), (2) and (3) above to extract along-track geoid slopes. Estimate along-track meso-scale (15 to 300km wavelength) variations in sea surface topography jointly with along-track ice freeboard fluctuations. Figure A Figure B

22. S.B. Luthcke OIB Research Responsibility Develop and provide local, tailored GRACE hi-res mascon solutions to support OIB mission planning and data analyses efforts. Advance ICESat-1 observations of ice sheet evolution through improved accuracy and error characterization. Use OIB observations directly and in combination with rigorous simulations to improve ICESat-1. Data corrections (e.g. pointing and ranging biases) Measurement modeling and observation algorithms (e.g. improved repeat track and xovers) dh/dt estimation algorithms (e.g. Optimal Anisotropic Non-Symmetric Filters using improved signal and noise covariance). Estimates of systematic and sampling errors. Combination solutions with other data such as GRACE. Fully characterize the performance of future spaceborne instruments, and refine and optimize designs and data reduction algorithms. Specifically targeted at ICESat-2 and DESDynI-Lidar Use OIB observations to develop detailed measurement models and simulations. Fully characterize and quantify error sources to focus mission design and development on those areas of importance and to significantly improve mission trade space assessment. Further develop and refine observation and solution estimation algorithms. Leverage the analyses and results from above to develop the methods and algorithms, and the observational data to support the inter-calibration of ICESat-1, ICESat-2 and DESDynI-Lidar. Finally, what can OIB and future airborne missions do for GRACE, GRACE-FO (validation when using tailored hi-res mascon solutions), and GRACE-II which promises much higher spatial resolution and accuracy?

24. Altimetry data analysis in support of NASA’s IceBridge program. Ben Smith University of Washington APL polar science center bsmith @ apl. washington. edu 206 788 5374 Goals: -Integrate ICESat-1 and Icebridge data to improve models of spatial and temporal ice sheet surface variability -Establish datasets for ICESat-2 data modeling -Monitor changes in outlet-glacier discharge and force balance -Analyze Icebridge data collected under cloudy conditions in preparation for Icebridge- ICESat-2 comparison and cross-calibration ICESat-2 development makes extensive use of ad-hoc ice sheet surface models. By investigating elevation changes as revealed by ICESat-1 – Icebridge data comparisons I will help make these models more realistic, and will help to identify areas where Icebridge data can be particularly helpful in constraining ice sheet changes. I will also, on an opportunistic basis, analyze airborne laser altimetry data collected by Icebridge under cloudy conditions, as a precursor to future work calibrating ICESat-2 data collected through clouds.

25. IceBridge Instrumentation M. Studinger

26. The IceBridge Experience to Date S. Martin and L. Koenig

27. Project Overview 1) How IceBridge came to be; 2) History of the IceBridge documentation to date; 3) How we did the flight planning: Community input, Science priority, Instrument priority, Field Scientists decisions 4) Lesson learned/Our recommendations: Necessity of cloning John Sonntag; Problems with workload distribution for science/instrument participants, given 6 years of back-to-back Antarctic and Greenland field seasons; 5) Responsibilities of the science team members from our perspective: Role is to gather data for the polar communities, plus provide input to IPCC; No one gets a pet project; Provide oversight for SE Alaska and ICECAP flights funded by IceBridge; Encourage analysis and publication of results, participation of junior scientists; 6) Decisions that still need to be made based on the Science team input: Determination/clearly written documentation of the time each instrument flies; Determination/clearly written documentation of the amount of time devoted to sea ice and ice sheet research; 7) Your new job; Complete the writing of official IceBridge Level 1 requirements and project plan; Construct flight lines with science justification for each campaign; Begin with planning for the Greenland experiment where constraints introduced by P-3 weight limits must be considered.

28. Level 1 Science Requirements Review

29. Science Objectives (following is from the draft project plan) What are the major forces and mechanisms causing the ice sheets to lose mass and change velocity, and how are these parameters changing over time? How does the ice sheet/glacier bed topography, ice shelves/tongues, and grounding line configurations effect ice dynamics? How does the bathymetry beneath ice shelves and the ocean/ice sheet interaction effect ice sheet/glacier flow dynamics? What are yearly snow accumulation rates over the ice sheets and sea ice? What is the snow depth on sea ice and how does snow depth affect the radiation and temperatures budgets in the Arctic? What are projected declines in extent and thickness of the Arctic sea ice and how will these declines affect the ice albedo feedback in climate models?

30. Ice Sheet Requirements The objectives are: To monitor changes in Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet elevations during the gap in satellite coverage between ICESat-1 and ICESat-2. To provide a dataset for cross-calibration and validation of ice-sheet elevations from satellite lidars (ICESat-1, ICESat-2, DesDynI-Lidar) and radars (CryoSat-2 and Envisat). To provide a dataset for improving the ICESat-1 ice-sheet elevation time series, including better characterization of ICESat-1 errors. To provide a dataset for improving numerical models of ice-sheet dynamics, especially maps of the bed beneath glaciers and ice shelves. To provide a dataset for improving instrument simulation and performance analysis in support of future missions, such as ICESat-2 and DesDynI-Lidar. To support, when feasible, field programs in Greenland and Antarctica.

31. Ice Sheet Science requirements: IceBridge shall make altimetry measurements that enable determination of surface elevation change to an uncertainty of 10 cm/yr over outlet glaciers of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. IceBridge shall make measurements that enable determination of surface slopes to an uncertainty of 0.5°. IceBridge shall fly at least 250,000 total km per year, with 30,000 km per year specifically along ICESat-1 tracks over sea ice and land ice. IceBridge shall fly at least 500 km per year as underflights along CryoSat-2 tracks over sea ice and land ice. IceBridge shall, for at least two field seasons, make altimetry measurements along a swath of the southern limit of the ICESat-1 tracks, enabling direct comparisons of surface elevations for a large number of ICESat-1 tracks. IceBridge shall make repeat altimetry measurements that enable determination of surface elevations, and surface elevation change, in critical areas where ICESat-1 data are limited or non-existent, including: – Coastal Greenland – Antartica’s Pine Island, Thwaites and Crane Glaciers – Amundsen Coast – Antarctic Peninsula – Accessible areas of East Antarctica – Accessible areas of the South Pole region not surveyed by ICESat-1 IceBridge shall make radar measurements that enable mapping and characterization of the bedrock beneath land- based ice as follows: For Greenland: in consideration of existing data, to establish a 100 km by 100 km grid and provide 10 km by 10 km grids over five major outlet glacier catchments. For Antarctica, provide mapping over accessible outlet glaciers that improve numerical models of ice sheet flow according to the priorities in #4. IceBridge shall make gravity measurements that enable the determination of bathymetry beneath ice shelves and sub-ice-sheet bedrock topography that cannot be mapped with radar for five key outlet glaciers in Greenland and accessible portions of Antarctica according to the priorities in #4. IceBridge shall conduct flight experiments that enable the inter-calibration of the flight instruments and the characterization of their errors. IceBridge shall in conjunction with altimetry measurements make measurements to determine the thickness and structure of the snow and firn layer.

32. Glaciers IceBridge Mountain Glacier and Ice Cap Science Requirements The objectives are: To monitor changes in selected mountain glacier and ice-cap elevations during the gap in satellite coverage between ICESat-1 and ICESat-2. To provide a dataset for cross-calibration and validation of glacier and ice-cap elevations from satellite lidars (ICESat-1, ICESat-2, DesDynI-Lidar) and radars (CryoSat-2 and Envisat). To provide a dataset for improving the ICESat-1 ice-sheet elevation time series, including better characterization of ICESat-1 errors. To improve our understanding of tidewater glacier dynamics and the role that they play in the stability of ice sheets. To map the bed beneath selected mountain glacier and ice-caps. Science requirements: IceBridge shall provide annual surveys of the 50 most important glaciers and ice caps around the Arctic to sea level rise estimates. IceBridge shall provide at least 15,000 km of centerline profiles along these glaciers and ice caps. IceBridge shall provide swath maps with a 1-m x 1-m lidar point density, 500 meters wide, with a 30-cm vertical accuracy. IceBridge shall provide at least 50 crossovers with CryoSat-2 and ICESat tracks.

33. Sea ice The objectives are: To monitor changes in Arctic Ocean sea ice freeboard and thickness during the gap in satellite coverage between ICESat-1 and ICESat-2. To provide a dataset for cross-calibration and validation of freeboard and thickness estimates from satellite lidars (ICESat-1 and ICESat-2) and radars (Envisat and CryoSat-2). To provide a dataset for understanding the snow depth distributions of the Arctic and Southern Oceans, and for improvements in thickness retrieval algorithms. To understand the feasibility and limitations of sea ice thickness retrieval in the Southern Ocean ice cover from satellite lidar and radar freeboards. To support, when feasible, field programs in the Arctic and Southern Oceans.

34. Sea Ice Science Requirements: IceBridge shall make surface elevation measurements that enable determination of sea-ice freeboard to an uncertainty of 5 cm at 500 m length scales. IceBridge shall make elevation measurements of the air-snow and the snow-ice interfaces that enable the determination of snow depth to an uncertainty of 5 cm at 500 m length scales. IceBridge shall provide annual acquisitions along near-exact repeat tracks during the late winters of the Arctic and Southern Oceans. IceBridge shall provide capability, annually, to fly at least four 1500 km tracks during the late winter of the Arctic Ocean and at least four 1500 km tracks during the late winter of the Southern Oceans. The location of exact tracks shall be determined by the IceBridge Science Team. IceBridge shall include flight tracks for sampling of the: – Perennial and seasonal ice covers between Greenland, the central Arctic, and the Alaskan Coast. – Multi-year sea ice pack north of Ellesmere and Greenland. – Sea ice across the Fram Strait flux gate. – Sea ice cover in Eastern Arctic North of the Fram Strait. – Bellingshausen Sea ice cover. – Weddell sea ice between tip of Antarctic Peninsula and Cap Norvegia. – Mixed ice cover in the western Weddell between the tip of Antarctic Peninsula and Ronne Ice Shelf. – CryoSat-2 ground tracks (coincident when possible).

35. Points to Consider for the Updating Requirements What are the complementary requirements in support of ICESat continuity including cross comparison with Cryosat? What sorts of specific modeling questions are IceBridge data intended to support? What are the outstanding modeling/prediction questions that could be resolved with IceBridge data? How should resources be partitioned between sea ice, ice sheets, ice caps, etc. How should resource be partitioned between mission continuity, calibration, parameter measurements, process studies, modeling/prediction studies. Does the science team have any requirement on instrument/configuration stability? When should instruments be upgraded? When should new instruments be added? Are all instruments routinely needed? How are the total flight miles for science and Icesat continuity justified (other than cost) Ice sheet surface slopes are usually less than 2 degrees, where does the 0.5 degree slope error come from? Critical areas seem to ultimately encompass all of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Can this be refined? Should there be requirements for gathering information about ice sheet basal conditions and processes at grounding line? Why is ice sheet gridding specified for radar but not the other instruments? Where do the gridding requirements come from? Why not swath mapping? What measurements are contributing to improved modeling of tidewater glaciers? What accuracy is required What are the 50 most important glaciers to monitor? Does the ATM provide 5 cm height accuracy for freeboard measurements? What is the requirement on ice thickness and is this consistent? How successfully can an airborne program “To monitor changes in Arctic Ocean sea ice freeboard and thickness during the gap in satellite coverage between ICESat-1 and ICESat-2.” Select monitoring sites seem feasible but then what sort of modeling is required to extrapolate across the basin. What does it mean to have a 5 cm accuracy on sea ice snow cover given the prevalence of snow layer flooding in the Antarctic? What are the IceBridge success criteria?

36. Science Requirements Discussion Summary J. Richter-Menge and K. Jezek

37. Task List and Schedule Jezek

38. Action Item Review Jezek

39. Coming Events October start of informal discussions and telecons for Greenland flight planning AGU Town Hall Meeting January PARCA/IceBridge Science team meeting at GSFC Summer 2011 IceBridge Flight Planning and Science Team meeting (JPL?)