1 / 5

Some Thoughts on Ground-Based Observations Eric Donovan – Prague – June 11, 2008

Some Thoughts on Ground-Based Observations Eric Donovan – Prague – June 11, 2008.

bud
Download Presentation

Some Thoughts on Ground-Based Observations Eric Donovan – Prague – June 11, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Some Thoughts on Ground-Based ObservationsEric Donovan – Prague – June 11, 2008 ILWS Overarching Objective (in a nutshell) – Achieve System-Level understanding of GeoSpace. ILWS agencies recognize that GB observations must be an integral part of the system-level effort, and that they are a critical complement to space-based observations. GB, for example, is essential to THEMIS, RBSPs, ERG, ORBITALS, KuaFu, MMS, SWARM (for GeoSpace), Cross Scale, etc. CAWSES/SCOSTEP, ICESTAR, IHY, IPY, CEDAR, GEM, THEMIS-GBO, Cluster GBWG, eGY, etc. – There is a general theme of data exploitation (turning information into knowledge). This effort is agency sponsored as in the case of the Heliophysical Data Environment Program of NASA. Key focus of this talk: With the exception of NSF, Space Agencies offer the only real hope of creating a world-wide network of geospace sensors that will facilitate significant advances in our field. Constellation-class missions deserve and need constellation-class GB observations. This cannot happen in a real way without genuine agency buy-in.

  2. From CEDAR “Frontiers” Networks and Chains… • of the 36 submissions to the recent CEDAR “Frontiers” session, at least 18 made mention of the need for global and regional scale networks • issues that were highlighted were globalization, enhanced spatio-temporal resolution, observing across multiple scales, three dimensional measurements etc (for example the figure at right shows the stratospheric vortex inferred from meteorological reanalysis of radiosonde data - a future possible network of Lidars would provide a synoptic time evolving view and shed light on vortex dynamics and variability.) • the way to achieve global synoptic measurements of the IT system, as well as arrays within arrays for multi-scale studies is DASI – Distributed Arrays of Small Instrumentation. This is arguably the most important next step in GB space science observation and essential to system-level science. This must be international. Someone must take ownership of this… why not ILWS?

  3. For Example Linked networks of GB instruments are the framework: CGSM MERIDIAN MIRACLE Site C6 Site M6 Site F6 Site C3 Site M3 Site F3 Site C5 Site M5 Site F5 Site C2 Site M2 Site F2 Site C4 Site M4 Site F4 Site C1 Site M1 Site F1 Site C0 Site M0 Site F0 The Internet

  4. What do we have to build on? There are facilities and programs all over the world… • Networks of small instruments: CGSM, MIRACLE, UNIS, AGI, AUGO, MEASURE, MERIDIAN, THEMIS GBO, InterMagnet, SuperDARN, etc. etc. • Large multi-instrument observatories at the location of large facilities: Poker Flat, Resolute Bay, Sondrestrom, Tromso, Millstone, South Pole Station, SuperDARN sites, etc. etc. • The growing “network” of virtual observatories: VMO/G, VMO/U, VITMO, VSO, VSPO, SPIDR, GAIA, Gloria, etc. etc. Each nation should sponsor an inventory of capacity • What sites are out there? • What instruments are out there? • Can we develop ways of integrating data? • What is likely to come in the near future? Note that capacity surveys have been carried out in the past not to much avail – why? • The output of these surveys has not been in a uniform format and generally these have not been incorporated into relational databases • The big “carrot” has not been there – if a big player (ie., NSF or equivalent agency or agencies) gets going on DASI the rest of the world will follow – they will have to!

  5. Concrete Steps Need to be Taken So what should we do – DASI Phase I • brainstorm on what expertise and knowledge is needed to make DASI happen – with this in mind establish a steering committee (look to CAWSES, ICESTAR, HPDE, etc). • host system-level science workshops – choose five grand challenge themes. • use the outcome of (2) to establish observational requirements for DASI sites. • devote resources to developing a web accessible data base for capacity surveys. • carry out the capacity surveys – make them complete, searchable, useable, and updatable. • devote resources to the evolving (international) geospace data environment - ensure that data from DASI instruments are readily available via the growing network of VxOs and make sure that VxOs complement rather than duplicate each other. • devote resources to bringing together those responsible for the operations of multi-instrument sites (MERIDIAN, MIRACLE, SRI, THEMIS-GBO, CGSM, AGO, AUGO, UAGI, PENGUIn, CANMOS, SuperDARN, EISCAT, etc etc). Address site management, data transport, standards, etc. This forms the “spacecraft bus” for DASI. • There is interest in a DASI Phase I that would have all the elements of DASI – science driven, multi-national, multi-agency, multi-instrument program. Make it real, perhaps starting with the Canada (CSA), USA (NSF), Denmark and Mexico. • use outputs of (3) & (5) to determine what we can add to what we have by 2010 (examples may be StormDARN, CHAIN, MF radars, FPIs, GPS & mag array enhancements, etc.) • engage instrument teams, modellers, data assimilation experts, and of course funding agencies and implement enhancements established in (8)

More Related