Don,

Many of the ideas they describe are not widely accepted, in fact, most are entirely unsupported.

The first topic, InSAR, is the most mainstream. We may be able to map ground displacement to within a mm (why did they write 1 mm/yr?) if we launch a set of those satellites. Whether that will reveal precursory signals from earthquakes is an open question. In any case, detailed images of ground deformation will show the stress CHANGES in the ground, not the stress itself.

The thermal anomalies are nonsense. We've never seen much precursory deformation nor temporal thermal anomalies. How likely is it that an areas hundreds of km square are heated several degrees? No such anomaly shows up at the time of the strong shaking during earthquakes.

The magnetic signals are more intriguing, but really boil down to the one recording shown for the Loma Prieta earthquake. By now, we've recorded signals for several more earthquakes, and no similar signals have been seen. Once again, no detectable magnetic signals are generated by the earthquakes themselves, so why would the at best tiny precursory deformations do more?

All in all, a remarkably wild set of speculations from NASA.

John