Upper Atmosphere Research Section Facility Workshop

MIT/Haystack Observatory

September 23-24, 2008

Meeting Motivation

• UARS has a facilities program that supports the operation, maintenance, and limited scientific efforts associated with upper atmosphere observing instruments.

• Should there be a comparable support mechanism for magnetospheric and solar observing instruments?

• If so, what is the best way to accomplish this?

The Upper Atmospheric Facilities Program

• Started in 1986

• Initial objectives

• The incoherent scatter radar chain– Jicamarca– Arecibo– Millstone– Chatanika

Components of the UAF Program

• Five incoherent scatter radar facilities• Partial funding for SuperDARN• Lidar Consortium• Miscellaneous awards including:

– Facility supplements

– Space Weather awards (CCMC)

– Other instrumentation awards

AO1962

JRO1963

MH1962

SRF1982

The NSF Incoherent Scatter Radar Chain-2006

Sondrestrom (SRF)

Millstone Hill (MH)

Arecibo (AO)

Jicamarca (JRO)

AO1962

JRO1963

MH1962

SRF1982

The NSF Incoherent Scatter Radar Chain-2007

Sondrestrom (SRF)

Millstone Hill (MH)

Arecibo (AO)

Jicamarca (JRO)

AMISR-Poker Flat

PFR 2007

AO1962

JRO1963

MH1962

SRF1982

NSF-supported ISRs--2008

Sondrestrom (SRF)

Millstone Hill (MH)

Arecibo (AO)Jicamarca (JRO)

AMISR-Poker Flat (PFISR)

PFISR 2007

RISR 2008

AMISR- Resolute Bay (RISR)

SuperDARN 2008

Consortium of Resonance and Rayleigh Lidars

Jicamarca, 1.5

Arecibo, 1.7

Millstone, 1.9

Sondrestrom, 2.3

AMISR, 2.3

Lidars, 0.8

SuperDARN, 0.6

Other, 0.8

UAF Funding Breakdown

Total: $11.9M

What defines a facility?

• Multi-user aspects—The instrument, data, cyber-infrastructure, etc., are used by a large portion of the UARS research community.

• Complexity—The facility is sufficiently complex that an interruption in support will make it difficult or more costly to reinstate.– Technical complexity– Interagency or international aspects– Multi-instrument components

• NSF ownership—NSF is responsible for not just the operation of the facility, but its decommissioning if the facility reaches the end of its useable lifespan.

• Cost/Risk—New or unproven technology that entails risk or where cost/benefit is not firmly established.

Additional review criteria for facilities• The quality of science enabled by the facility and quality of

science conducted by facility staff• The ability to maintain and operate instrumentation as a

national facility• The quality of the data provided by the facility• The effectiveness of procedures to disseminate the data to

scientific users• The extent to which the data are being used for research by

senior scientists and undergraduates• The effectiveness of programs to educate prospective users of

facility data• The effectiveness of programs to educate students and the

general public• The scientific leadership demonstrated by the facility staff

Cooperative Agreements

• Allow for active NSF involvement in the operation of the facility

• Include special terms and conditions• Annual budgets are not “automatic”• Cannot be used for collaborative

proposals• Typically five years, but support may be

contingent on mid-term management, scientific, or technical reviews

Facility Review

• Facilities are reviewed every five years upon submission of renewal proposals—Reviewers receive a special request letter asking them to evaluate facilities on the basis of specific facility review criteria.

• The UAF Program is reviewed every three years by a Committee of Visitors

• The UAF Program has sponsored two facility-wide reviews involving an external panel and site visits to each facility—The reports from these panels were used to establish the review criteria for the facility renewal proposals.

Meeting purpose

• To ensure that those interested in facility support are aware of the “special” handling facilities get from UARS

• To start thinking about guidelines for “qualifying” an activity as a facility.

• To provide information to potential facility operators that will help in the development of realistic budget estimates for operations.

• To begin a dialog among all stakeholders that will result in a strategy to best meet the needs of the UARS science community.

Workshop AgendaSeptember 23 Morning Session-Bob R. Chair8:30 – 9:00 Welcome, introductions, and remarks—Bob RobinsonExisting Facility Presentations (Rewards and challenges of operating facilities; best practices, budget realities, community expectations, etc)9:00 – 9:20 Millstone--Foster9:20 – 9:40 Arecibo--Gonzalez9:40 – 10:10 Sondrestrom and AMISR—Kelly and Heinselman10:10 – 10:30 Break10:30 – 10:50 SuperDARN--Ruohoniemi10:50 – 11:10 Jicamarca--Hysell11:10 – 11:30 CCMC--Hesse11:30 – 11:50 CRRL--Robinson11:50 – 1:00 LunchSeptember 23 Afternoon Session-Paul B. ChairPresentations by potential new facilities1:00 – 1:20 THEMIS Ground-Based Observatory--Mende1:20 – 1:40 NSRO and FASR--Bastian1:40 – 2:00 MLSO and COSMO--Tomczyk2:00 – 2:20 Solar-C--Lin2:20 – 2:40 Spaceship Earth--Evenson2:40 – 3:00 Break3:00 – 3:20 PENGUIn--Lessard3:20 – 3:40 Murchison WFA--Lonsdale3:40 – 4:00 GONG and SOLIS--Hill4:00 – 4:20 Northridge Solar Observatory--Chapman4:20 – 4:40 SMEI—Jackson4:40 – 5:00 LISN – Cesar Valladares5:00 – 5:30 General DiscussionGroup DinnerSeptember 24 Morning Session9:00 – 12:00 Discussion led by Paul Bellaire and Rich Behnke