Requirements for meteor and dust studies with the new EISCAT_3D facility Asta Pellinen-Wannberg Umeå University and Swedish Institute of Space Physics EISCAT_3D User Meeting, April 19-21, 2010, Uppsala, Sweden

ESFRI Roadmap and the FP7 Preparatory Phase FP7 Preparatory Phase follows quite automatically the acceptance into the ESFRI Roadmap EISCAT_3D was a special case –Not a completely new science instrument –A new radar instead of another for which the bandwidth was lost due to EU decision somewhere else How do we keep up the science interest for more years, before we have a new radar?

6 SNR (dB) 2 10 E S Z A meteor passing the Tromso radar beam:

Interference in the echoes from two separating fragments:

Orbits of 194 solar system dust particles observed during 24 hours around the autumnal equinox 2005

Csilla’s resonanser

Possible new sites Possible new baseline Transmitter site 69.4 N 30.0 E N E 68.2 N 14.3 E ~67 N EISCAT_3D FP6 Design Study Site location suggestions

Swedish infrastructure proposal 2009

69.4 N 30.0 E N E 68.2 N 14.3 E EISCAT_3D?

PMSE

69.4 N 30.0 E N E 68.2 N 14.3 E Future EISCAT_3D for meteor studies

Requirements for meteor and dust studies with the new EISCAT_3D facility Multistatic observations unique and essential Make the new geometry ultimate with receiver stations on two circles (low and high altitude) around the transmitter, three on each circle located 120° from each others User friendly

69.4 N 30.0 E N E 68.2 N 14.3 E Or future EISCAT_3D for meteor studies

Problems to solve Fill the new VHF frequency (233 MHz) fast! Concern for the escape/retirement of scientific and technical experts Positions for post postdocs? The geometry for the tristatic EISCAT UHF was never perfect, it was based on –Need of supporting infra structure in the late 70’s –Political, sites in each Nordic country Today we have the technology to build unmanned stations whereever we get a location –Make the most optimal scientifically justified geometry –Do not go for pet solutions