the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 31 Jul 2026
The TRISHNA Mission: A New Era of High-Resolution Thermal Infrared Earth Observation for Land Surface Monitoring
Abstract. Thermal infrared (TIR) satellite remote sensing is essential for monitoring land surface temperature (LST) and surface energy fluxes, supporting applications in hydrology, agriculture, climate, and urban climate. Existing TIR missions—such as LANDSAT, ASTER, ECOSTRESS, and Sentinel-3 SLSTR—offer complementary capabilities but remain constrained by trade-offs between spatial resolution, revisit frequency, and radiometric accuracy, limiting their ability to capture rapidly evolving surface processes at field to regional scales.
The TRISHNA (Thermal Infrared Satellite for High-Resolution Natural Resource Assessment) mission, expected in 2027, addresses this gap by providing 60 m TIR imagery over a ~1000 km swath with sub-weekly revisit, enabling systematic monitoring of surface energy processes in natural and managed ecosystems. Its integrated design —including orbit configuration, spectral channels (VNIR, SWIR, TIR), viewing geometry, and calibration strategy— supports accurate retrievals of evapotranspiration, vegetation water stress, and surface temperature dynamics. Synergies with upcoming missions such as ESA’s Land Surface Temperature Mission (LSTM) and NASA’s EAGLE mission (Explorer for Artemis Geology Lunar and Earth) will enhance temporal coverage, cross-calibration, and long-term data continuity.
- Preprint
(2884 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4492', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1: suggestions all accepted', Philippe Gamet, 12 Sep 2026
About the annotated copy of the pdf with typographical/wording suggestions: all typos and wording corrections will be taken into account in the revised manuscript. We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough and attentive reading, especially given the length of the manuscript!
You will find below the answers to each item on behalf of all co-authors. All suggestions are accepted and taken into account in the revised manuscript. Answers to the comments are provided below.
Comment
Answer It would be useful to include a table of abbreviations/acronyms
We agree, the table will be included in the introduction section in the revised manuscript as Table 1.
L 59 Suggest adding ‘surface’ to allow the more specific "surface urban heat island intensity" since UHI is a more generic term and air and surface UHI are distinctly different.
Fully agreed, it is very important to add this precision, the modification will be in the revised manuscript.
L 106-108 I think there may be some Chinese satellite-based sensors that may also be included? SDGSAT-1?
SDGSAT-1 (3 thermal bands, 30m, 300km swath, launch 2021) will be mentioned in the revised manuscript, reference to Gao et al., 2026 added.
L160-162 Consider adding forest fire risk to the applications?
Not all potential applications are listed, but agreed, it will be added in revised manuscript
L185 probably should define blue and green water
Agreed, will be in revised manuscript
L 227 Consider adding a reference to Hall et al. 2024 DOI: 10.1002/qj.4669 for use of LST in evaluating urban models.
The suggested reference has been added to the manuscript
L 236 There is some additional more recent urban thermal anisotropy work that may be useful to reference, e.g. see work by Wenfeng Zhan and collaborators. One option may be Du et al. 2023 10.1016/j.scib.2023.06.032
The manuscript has been updated with more recent references.
Section 2.6 I wonder if this might better come before the various applications?
It makes sense. Moved to §2.1 in revised manuscript.
L 322-325 This seems to partially repeat information – given the length of the paper I would recommend trying to shorten where opportunities arise.
Agreed, redundancy suppressed in revised manuscript.
Figure 2 is not in colour as implied by the caption.
OK, caption updated in revised manuscript.
L 435 Add some comment re urban anisotropy here, which can be larger.
The text has been updated to include a comment on urban anisotropy. (line 434)
L 445-451 There is also urban work related, e.g. see my earlier comment.
This paragraph has been extended to mention the main conclusions of current studies on urban anisotropy (lines 451- 461)
L 463 In urban areas the observations opposite the hotspot may also be significantly influenced by anisotropy. Perhaps a flag on surface structure (e.g. LCZ related?) to warn of potential anisotropy in more densely built urban regions?
While the existing literature provides valuable insights into urban anisotropy, the findings on how to relate surface characteristics to observed directional effects often conflict due to differences in analysis assumptions, angular ranges and spatial resolutions. Further analysis dedicated to the TRISHNA context is needed to propose a relevant quality flag for urban areas. Therefore, we would prefer not to make any recommendations in this regard before extending the investigations.
.
L 478 Use SUHI in place of UHI here and elsewhere.
As for previous comment, we fully agree and the modification has been done through the manuscript
L 542 50 m is closer to the scale of the dominant surface structure variability in urban areas that controls LST variation but there is still a lot of urban structure/surface characteristic variability at smaller scales. One reference here that addresses this is Schmid & Oke 1997.
Schmid, H.P. and Oke, T.R., 1992. Scaling North American urban climates by lines, lanes, and rows. The Guildford Press: New York.The text has been updated to include a comment on this scale aspect (line 552) and the reference included.
L 449 There seems a bias here to mid-latitude type climates that if not addressed later perhaps should be acknowledged.
As fully acknowledged by the authors in Michel et al., 2023, the scope of the findings is limited by the MASTER study's geographic focus on California. This limitation will be explicitly noted in the revised manuscript.
L 561-562 Just a comment that this is also important for land surface studies since dT/dt is strong near sunset.
Noted
L 668 Should this be "with transmittance lowering overall with increasing atmospheric water"? (However Fig 9 doesn't show results for different amounts of atmospheric water).
Yes indeed. Corrected in revised manuscript.
Figure 10 Given that urban areas are one anticipated (and important) target of the mission, it may be good to include some representation of urban emissivity and associated challenges (e.g. not just material variability but emissivity effects due to surface geometry, specular effects etc) within this section.
The definition of the spectral bands was determined for the design drivers of the mission, which do not include urban. However, the study shows that the drivers for band definition are the atmosphere (O3 and H2 absorption features) and cross-talk considerations, not the emissivities. As far as the performance of level 2 products on urban areas is concerned:
- For level 2 processings, emissivities of articifial materials were included in the database used in the temperature-emissivity separation algorithm (see Marcq et al., 2023).
- A dedicated processing chain for urban environment will be tested locally to account for the specificities that you pointed out, namely spectific emissivity-separation accounting for urban materials and canyon effect.
L 722 Define FHWM and consider a list of abbreviations/acronyms.
OK
L 983 Is there explicit processing for thermal anisotropy? If so, what approaches are applied?
LST product corrected from thermal anisotropy will be proposed for expertise as a side-product (not in the operational processing chain). The initial algorithm will apply the method described in §3.2.6, which is so far our best candidate. The processing chain will be updated to reflect future advancements in directional anisotropy modeling. Additionally, the integration of the normalized LST product into the evapotranspiration processing pipeline will be evaluated.
L 1064 This may be more of a wording issue but it wasn’t clear to me as I read the paper if this is also a modular approach or an inversion approach?
While the overall processing chain follows a modular approach that proceeds step-by-step, the surface albedo estimation definitely relies on an inversion methodology. Specifically, the algorithm inverts a directional reflectance model (BRDF) against a time series of cloud-free observations to retrieve surface anisotropy parameters before performing angular integration. This can be explained in the revised manuscript.
L 1181 There may be other potential evaluation sites - e.g. FluxNet sites?
Sure, existing networks (Fluxnet, ICOS, AmeriFlux) provide highly relevant references. However, using them during in-orbit calval phase raises an issue of timeliness: the official release of the processed data from these sites often occurs months after the acquisition. During this phase, we need short loop feed-back to tune the algorithms, this is why we rely on dedicated sites. Eventually, at the end of the calval phase, TRISHNA’s product will be validated in a variety of lanscapes in conditions using the existing networks. This strategy will be (briefly) mentioned in the revised manuscript and the main networks listed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4492-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1: suggestions all accepted', Philippe Gamet, 12 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4492', Andrew N. French, 22 Sep 2026
The TRISHNA Mission: A New Era of High-Resolution Thermal Infrared Earth Observation for Land Surface Monitoring
Summary by authors
This paper highlights how the upcoming TRISHNA satellite mission (launching 2027) will transform Earth observation by providing high-resolution (60 m) thermal infrared imagery with sub-weekly revisits. It details the mission's design and its synergies with other future missions to significantly improve the monitoring of global surface temperature and its dynamics, water stress, and ecosystem energy processes.
N.B.-- the EGU editor system inexplicably changes the numbering of my comments, under General remarks there should be 5 of them: 1) paper theme, 2) summary section 3) ET remarks, 4) TRISHNA configuration, 5) tables. Apology to authors but I have been unable to keep the online editor from making changes. -AF
General
This paper on TRISHNA provides important, essential, and timely documentation for an exciting satellite mission coming in 2027. The paper is scientifically and technically detailed, complete in most respects, and well organized. Few changes have to be done but I have some suggestions:
- Your paper title and summary remark that TRISHNA will introduce a new era, and will transform earth observations, but that message is lost in the manuscript. You imply but don’t explicitly describe what you mean by new era and earth observation transformation. This is a major omission. Can you find ways to show readers why TRISHNA brings a new era in remote sensing and how it will or could transform earth observations?
One way would be to strengthen the abstract by emphasizing the transformation theme. The sentence ordering could be changed so that it begins with, e.g., “TRISHNA is a thermal infrared satellite mission that will transform earth observation of hydrology, agriculture, climate, urban climate, ecosystems by doing xyz…..”
Another way to strengthen the message is to provide specifics up-front and in a comparative fashion. For example, you might say that while current observations collect at best 100 m data every 8 days, TRISHNA will bring worldwide 60 m observations about every three days. Wording such as “every few days at less than 100 m” doesn’t sound transformative, nor like a ‘new era’.
My assessment: TRISHNA will be transformative because of its collective capabilities. No other existing or proposed satellite offers all of this in one platform: fast, accurate and freely available LST data because of its high spatial resolution, high temporal resolution, wide swath, simultaneous VNIR/SWIR, multiband TIR, very low latency….
- Due to the manuscript length and wealth of details, a summary section is needed, or possibly just a table following paragraph beginning on line 100. I think most readers would appreciate a summary instead of having to navigate sections 3,4, 5 where all the essentials are eventually presented. The manuscript is rich with details about the satellite itself, the observations it will collect, process and deliver, and the rationale behind the configuration of them. However, the core details are scattered. A summary would provide essentials needed when reading Section 2, otherwise some readers will have a poor idea about the observations that enable answering science questions. A summary would include the main components of the instrument, the what-when-where for the collection of observations, the what- when-where for the delivery of the observations, and their derivative products.
- The evapotranspiration remarks in section 5.2.3 ought to be reviewed and revised so that everyone can readily understand its importance and how TRISHNA will advance ET science and applications. Currently these remarks are not clear.
The ET section introduces two ET models as part of the TRISHNA project, but it isn’t clear why these two have been chosen. There are now quite a few well-established thermal-based ET models so it is important to make the case for EVASPA and STIC. Possibly: EVASPA does what no other TIR model does (i.e. multi-model, model ensemble, time continuous) and that EVASPA is a synthesis(?) of TRISHNA capabilities. Why the program has the fallback of STIC needs to be explained. Oddly you add comments L 1113-4 that step on your own message by highlighting how the 1D approach inadequately handles 2D processes.
- Each section would benefit from the inclusion of a concise statement of the TRISHNA configuration. Currently the text explains details (possibly too many) about all the considerations for the configuration, followed at long last with a punchline summary. A standout example is section 3.2.6. Change the ordering so the synopsis is stated up-front. This would be helpful for many readers, who will want the project decisions easy to find. Those wishing for more details can read on.
- Table standardization would improve the presentation. The 8 tables are currently displayed in multiple styles and colors; using the same style and color throughout would make for cleaner and crisper presentation. Unless EGUsphere dictates otherwise, table captions conventionally lie above the table.
Details
L 65: Suggest omitting “(resampled to 30 m)”
L 65: consider leading with ‘From an observations standpoint four notable thermal infrared missions- LANDSAT, ASTER, ECOSTRESS, and Sentinel-3 SLSTR- have provided a wide but fragmented span of spatial temporal scales…’
Section 2 before 2.1: suggest a 1-2 sentence summary introduction to the five core science objectives
The subsections have consistent but somewhat annoying style: they begin with the science questions and problems, and —after much detail-- are then followed by how TRISHNA will address these. That style is definitely author choice, but for the sake of better emphasis of TRISHNA I suggest each sub-section begin with a synopsis of the questions followed immediately by how TRISHNA will address them.
2.1: This section is about more than ET. It considers ET, the low latency of ET, the related Delta T (per L 175). Consider revising the opening sentence, e.g. ET, an essential climate variable, and the related day/night LST differences, are key observations for water management, irrigation, rapid detection of pest and plant diseases, crop water consumption.
Suggest moving part, or all, of L165 to follow introduction of ET as an ECV, i.e. emphasize the role TRISHNA will play in providing ET data.
L 255: add abbreviation (OSSE) ?
L260: maybe: Surface temperature observations can improve monitoring of debris covered glaciers?
2.5: why/where is mineralogical mapping weak, why does it need to be strengthened?
Consider strengthening case for volcano and thermal anomaly detection with LST, especially for eruptions, the effects from these are potentially huge and it is import to emphasize how TRISHNA could help with hazard prediction.
2.6: Is the science team organized along the same themes as noted in 2.1-2.5? If yes, note that.
Section 3:
L 305: there is no guarantee in the satellite business, suggest re-phrasing the 5-year plan.
Is there some specific way to say why 5 years (vs. 3 years?) is important?
L320: I suggest you remove “(as one says, “before the farmer’s breakfast”). For the better-developed world, most farmers have known for a long time how much and when to irrigate. What they lack is how to handle irrigation under unusual conditions (e.g., water shortage, extreme weather, diseases).
L 325: the free and open data policy is a big deal! This is worth emphasizing early on in the manuscript.
L 330: coverage is global minus interior of Antarctica?
It would be stronger to be more direct: TRISHNA will deliver global coverage to address all five science areas?
L 335: Revisit time: Better to say TRISHNA will provide global coverage every 1-3 days.
Then state that the revisit time is based on an optimizing and consideration of multiple objectives and constraints, including spatial resolution, view angle, observational accuracy, and cloud cover.
3.2.4: tell us what the target accuracies are for LST and ET, then proceed with details.
Figure 1 is a bit confusing, has redundancies, and needs emphasis on TRISHNA mission design. Every sub-plot is titled the same, so remove and replace with crop and site. Every sub-plot has the same legend, only one is needed. The same values are repeated in plot margins, choose one or the other. It is confusing to understand what is the meaning of 2 mm/d uncertainty vs. 0.0 – 0.9 mm/d for ‘err’.
Suggest adding vertical lines to denote revisit times for TRISHNA (and maybe add one at 8-days for comparison against the Landsat paired observations?)
Figure 2: including color would be an improvement, replace Day number with Year/Month annotation.
L 374: It would be informative to add that uncertainties for TRISHNA are almost always under 1 mm/d while LANDSAT spikes at crucial times (Summer I am guessing for the 1700 and 1970 day numbers)
Figure 3: standardize colors, fonts and variable names for LE, H, the sub-plots look like they are cut and pasted from different sources, sub-plot labels (a, b) are missing. Explain that the x-axis labels denote experiment names.
Section 3.2.6 reads like an algorithm theoretical basis document (ATBD), that style is not a good match for the rest of the manuscript.
L 425: use of ‘shall’ is a bit officious, consider softer wording, e.g. TRISHNA will have OZA’s less than 40 degrees
L 440-445: I am not clear about the purpose of paragraphs on these lines until subsequently reading lines 455-465. It would be clearer to state up front what the TRISHNA project strategy is for handling angular anisotropy, then elaborate the rationale for the strategy.
Line 452: remark in bold is out of character for the manuscript, recommend removing and re-writing the subsequent three bullet points so that the style is like the rest of Section 3.
Section 3.2.7 : suggest stating up front that the TRISHNA GSD will be 60 m and that this specification is a result of studies considering the need to resolve individual fields while reducing effects of near surface air turbulence.
Suggestion for histograms (Fig. 4, 5) to re-plot with no gaps between bars
Missing in-text reference for Fig. 6.
Figure 7: Correct spelling error for Lagouarde, unclear what the time scale of seconds means, is this plot for a particular time of day?, If so I suggest the scaling be by hours & minutes unless it is more important to disregard time of day and instead emphasize the temporal scale of observed LST variability vs. GSD.
L564: would be interesting to elaborate why launch and spacecraft power constrains overpass to be no later than 13:30, relevant for those use cases where early onset of crop water stress could first manifest in mid to late afternoon.
Table 1 styling: usual layout for tables for journals does not use vertical grid and minimal horizontal lines; Table 2 does adhere to that practice except that the caption should be at top of table.
Please define “sma” in table 2 and explain the reason for the orange column tinting.
Confused about Figure 8. Which curve represents the TRISHNA selection (solid red per Table 4? Or is it the blue?); should be clearly indicated. There is no mention of Fig. 8 in the text and it is unclear how the relationship between GSD and latitude is discussed.
3.3 Spectral requirements
‘In the context of the TRISHNA mission’? this paper is all about TRISHNA, should not need to state this.
At section start, state what TRISHNA will have in VNIR/SWIR/TIR, then go into to the details.
3.3.2: suggest mentioning the depth of water vapor for the selected MODTRAN runs.
Fig. 9: units should be spectral irradiance? Suggest editing caption to say something to the effect of ‘TRISHNA thermal band placement optimizes maximal atmospheric transmissivity and minimal atmospheric emittance? Y-axis annotations should include ‘emittance’.
Fig.10: do you need the top subplot? Might be too much clutter, but it would be helpful to draw vertical lines denoting TRISHNA band locations. Consider cross reference to Table 7. Consider trimming y-axis scale to ~0.7 emissivity (very few cases with lower emissivity) to highlight emissivity differences between 8-10 and 10-13 micrometers.
L688: accounts
L690 since DirectTES is the TES algorithm to be used for TRISHNA it would be useful to explain what it does, how it differs from Gillespie and other TES’s and why it will be used for this satellite. Might also mention in this section the related details for NLSST over water.
L 717: clarify wording: shifting to shorter or longer wavelengths instead of unclear higher/lower wavelengths.
L 724: interference (no s)
Move table 3 caption to top, remove vertical grid
3.3.3 Specification instead of Definition of VNIR Spectral bands?
L 735: Important, maybe very important, is to emphasize the point that the four bands are needed, they significantly reduce LST estimation errors over a two-band split window approach.
L 770: “which let further room for improvement” ??
L 778: confusing wording, please clarify what is meant.
L797: NE Delta T previously defined
L802: need to clarify what is meant by Theta TS Mrz
L 810: repeated material from above re turbulence
L 815:, not saying you should censor this fact, but mention of decent LST results with split window diminishes the argument for using 4 bands, consider how and where to place the finding.
Figure 11: not mentioned in text, explanation needed for percentages, help readers understand how to interpret the histograms and how they inform TRISHNA configuration of VNIR sensors. Add units for x-axis, units of y axis should be spectral radiance.
Tables 4, 5: suggest no color fill, standardize table layouts throughout
Figure 12: Is there a rationale for the uneven bin intervals? Consider explaining the abrupt drop-off in revisit frequency at 60 deg N. If there is a web site with this figure, please provide the http address
Minor issue, but check typography throughout, e.g. L 874 needs a space between number and unit 100 km
Figure 14: what is lime green vs. dark blue for Antarctica?
Fig. 4.2.2: would be good to mention the TIR calibration design, it seems to be a hot and cold reference system, how often are calibrations done
4.3.2: production distribution goal is 12 hours, impressive and important to highlight early in the manuscript and not bury this comment deeply on Line 965
L975: will not be distributed…
Figure 17: purple text is covered by arrows and black symbols. What is the difference between the Indian X-band (correct typography, capitalization) and French X-band network?
L 1019: missing period
Evapotranspiration:
L 1072: This sentence inadequately characterizes the direct role of LST is to provide sensible heat flux estimates, and not ET.
Synergies, L 1189: maybe say early afternoon, and is Eagle overpass time for sure in afternoon?
L1191: clarify that LSTM is a two-satellite mission
L 1198-1208: interesting but very technical, can you simplify by explaining that the differing orbits will lead to both better inter-calibration and temporal sampling?
L 1210-1217: This paragraph describes a vision for having TRISHNA+LSTM+Eagle but it unfortunately also weakens the ‘transformative role’ for TRISHNA because it makes clear that daily observations are what are really needed for ET mapping… so TRISHNA alone can’t get us there. Can you find a way to place TRISHNA as an essential pioneer mission with capabilities that will be further strengthened by LSTM?
L 1224-1244: check verb tenses for consistency, suggest to say “will be” or ‘planned to be”
Conclusion: this text plus some numbers would satisfy the request for a summary. Then the focus for this section could be lightly edited to focus on the manuscript content.
Technical
Provide a glossary of abbreviations
Check typography for consistency of units
Where feasible standardize table style.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4492-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 417 | 176 | 33 | 626 | 27 | 25 |
- HTML: 417
- PDF: 176
- XML: 33
- Total: 626
- BibTeX: 27
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The TRISHNA Mission: A New Era of High-Resolution Thermal Infrared Earth Observation for Land Surface Monitoring
General comments: This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the TRISHNA mission, describing the science applications, the mission design, system definition, products and calibration/validation strategy and synergies with other missions. It will provide a useful reference paper for users. Most of my comments are minor in nature and reflect a knowledge bias on my part related to urban environments. I provide separately an annotated copy of the pdf with typographical/wording suggestions.
Specific Comments
It would be useful to include a table of abbreviations/acronyms
L 59 Suggest adding ‘surface’ to allow the more specific "surface urban heat island intensity" since UHI is a more generic term and air and surface UHI are distinctly different.
L 106-108 I think there may be some Chinese satellite-based sensors that may also be included? SDGSAT-1?
L160-162 Consider adding forest fire risk to the applications?
L185 probably should define blue and green water
L 227 Consider adding a reference to Hall et al. 2024 DOI: 10.1002/qj.4669 for use of LST in evaluating urban models.
L 236 There is some additional more recent urban thermal anisotropy work that may be useful to reference, e.g. see work by Wenfeng Zhan and collaborators. One option may be Du et al. 2023 10.1016/j.scib.2023.06.032
Section 2.6 I wonder if this might better come before the various applications?
L 322-325 This seems to partially repeat information – given the length of the paper I would recommend trying to shorten where opportunities arise.
Figure 2 is not in colour as implied by the caption.
L 435 Add some comment re urban anisotropy here, which can be larger.
L 445-451 There is also urban work related, e.g. see my earlier comment.
L 463 In urban areas the observations opposite the hotspot may also be significantly influenced by anisotropy. Perhaps a flag on surface structure (e.g. LCZ related?) to warn of potential anisotropy in more densely built urban regions?
L 478 Use SUHI in place of UHI here and elsewhere.
L 542 50 m is closer to the scale of the dominant surface structure variability in urban areas that controls LST variation but there is still a lot of urban structure/surface characteristic variability at smaller scales. One reference here that addresses this is Schmid & Oke 1997.
Schmid, H.P. and Oke, T.R., 1992. Scaling North American urban climates by lines, lanes, and rows. The Guildford Press: New York.
L 449 There seems a bias here to mid-latitude type climates that if not addressed later perhaps should be acknowledged.
L 561-562 Just a comment that this is also important for land surface studies since dT/dt is strong near sunset.
L 668 Should this be "with transmittance lowering overall with increasing atmospheric water"? (However Fig 9 doesn't show results for different amounts of atmospheric water).
Figure 10 Given that urban areas are one anticipated (and important) target of the mission, it may be good to include some representation of urban emissivity and associated challenges (e.g. not just material variability but emissivity effects due to surface geometry, specular effects etc) within this section.
L 722 Define FHWM and consider a list of abbreviations/acronyms.
L 983 Is there explicit processing for thermal anisotropy? If so, what approaches are applied?
L 1064 This may be more of a wording issue but it wasn’t clear to me as I read the paper if this is also a modular approach or an inversion approach?
L 1181 There may be other potential evaluation sites - e.g. FluxNet sites?