Ground-Based Networks for System-Level GeoSpace Investigations Eric Donovan – ILWS Meeting – June 12, 2007 ILWS Overarching Objective (in a nutshell) – Achieve System-Level understanding of GeoSpace. ILWS should (does?) recognize that GB observations must be an integral part of the ILWS effort. GB is essential to the science objectives of THEMIS, RBSPs, ERG, ORBITALS, KuaFu, MMS, SWARM (for GeoSpace), Cross Scale, etc. ICESTAR, CAWSES/SCOSTEP, IHY, IPY, CEDAR, GEM, THEMIS-GBO, Cluster GBWG, eGY, etc. – There is a general theme of data exploitation (turning information into knowledge). We want to add to, but not duplicate, these efforts. This is problematic for the ILWS GBTG Key focus of this talk: DASI – Distributed Arrays of Small Instrumentation. …And the move towards “Globalization”

The idea is to populate wide geographic regions (possibly even the globe) with ground-based instruments for remote sensing the spheres of scientific interest o our respective communities. The objective is “system-level science”, but that is still ill- defined.

SuperDARN/PolarDARN CARISMA CANMOS CADI NORSTAR F10.7 FDAM (Assim./Model.) CHAIN* AUGO* National Efforts AMISR THEMIS-GBO MACCS OMTI SuperDARN/StormDARN * Expected to compete in upcoming CGSM AO Partners 15 “core sites” >40 sites in total Involves at least 8 organizations in Canada Infrastructure enhancements funded by CFI, CSA and others Operations and some science funded by CSA Canadian GeoSpace Monitoring (CGSM)

THEMIS GBO Network

There are equivalently large or larger networks in the ionosonde, GPS, induction coil, VLF, etc world. There are literally thousands of instruments presently deployed that are a defacto DASI.

There are facilities and programs all over the world… (1)Networks of small instruments: CGSM, MIRACLE, UNIS, AGI, AUGO, MEASURE, MERIDIAN, THEMIS GBO, InterMagnet, SuperDARN, etc. etc. (2)Large multi-instrument observatories at the location of large facilities: Poker Flat, Resolute Bay, Sondrestrom, Tromso, Millstone, South Pole Station, SuperDARN sites, etc. etc. (3)The growing “network” of virtual observatories: VMO/G, VMO/U, VITMO, VSO, VSPO, SPIDR, GAIA, Gloria, SuperDARN, etc. etc. There should be an inventory of capacity… (1)What sites are out there? (2)What instruments are out there? (3)Where is data available? (4)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? (1)The output of these surveys has not been in a uniform format and generally these have not been incorporated into relational databases (2)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!

Multi-Instrument Site Capability – Could be “franchised” DASI is more about how we do what we do CGSM

At the national agency level invest in site infrastructure that supports expanding networks (cheap, robust, extra slots, telemetry, monitoring software, long term, etc) A few extra slots for instruments in he THEMIS GBOs would have enable a lot of additional science.

International (formally US, Canada) Multi-instrument (white light ASI, mag) Multi-agency (formally NASA, CSA) It could grow in nations involved (UK, Norway, China, Finland, …) Agencies (NSF, NASA, CSA, STFC, NSERC, etc) would need to forge a strong and enduring partnership – and money would likely have to flow across borders.

Multi-Instrument Sites form the core… Instrument AInstrument BInstrument C Instrument N ● ● ● ● ● Housekeeping LAN firewall The Internet Every site would allow for additional instruments in a plug and play fashion

These are stitched together to make national programs that in turn form the backbone of a global array… The Internet Site C3 Site C6 Site C5 Site C4 Site C2 Site C1 Site C0 Site F3 Site F6 Site F5 Site F4 Site F2 Site F1 Site F0 CGSMMIRACLE In the end …. the dozens of contributing programs would be of all sizes and evolving over time, but all with the same ethos. Site M3 Site M6 Site M5 Site M4 Site M2 Site M1 Site M0 MERIDIAN

Such things can be done… There must be many, but an obvious analogy is the ARGOS project (1)thousands of autonomous buoys that drift around the ocean (2)each is identical (3)each undergoes cycles that probe salinity/temperature profiles (4)the drifting of these buoys is interesting in and of itself (5)the US funded the lions share of the buoys, but many other countries have contributed (6)other nations have contributed to design, data management, etc

Make data products that facilitate rapid extraction of knowledge from presently unmanageable masses of information. The Data Issue is Very Important SuperDARN is really the only group that has done the well… Map Potential is widely used and synthesizes Gbytes of data into a global synoptic data product that is at once easily interpreted visually and readily assimilated into models. The GPS community is not far off with global TEC maps. We should work towards similar products for magnetic field, neutral winds, precipitation, etc. It is worth noting that the most successful example (SuperDARN) came from the observational community.

One guy’s (my) thoughts It is inevitable that… (1)there will be a proliferation of ground-based geospace instrumentation (2)it will become easier to retrieve the data from these in real time (3)it will become easier to have higher resolution data than the real time operation affords (4)it will become easier to integrate data from disparate sources, programs, instruments, etc. DASI (1)is not yet a program. (2)is more about protocols than hardware – an effective DASI “ethos” will maximize the impact of the now disparate global ground-based efforts: spend extra money to make sites more naturally multi-instrument, provide extra funds to host extra instruments, develop packages of plug-and-play software and hardware for site management, and on and on… (3)must be international or it will not work – the global community must be engaged (4)support new and especially small (developing) players – if you are setting up 50 sites with 50 GPS units, etc, well…. buy 60 and give 10 or so to another researcher. (5)needs to be made into a program with some funding to create new resources that reinforce the DASI “ethos” (ie., VxOs, infrastructure for multi-instrument sites, software to support satellite and land-line internet telemetry, new instruments NOT on top of existing instruments, etc.). Establish a steering committee, hold the international workshops, engage partners, carry out North American DASI Phase I, etc. (6)is not everything – observational campaigns, dense networks of multi-instrument stations, Class I facilities, etc are and will remain essential – done right DASI would be like GOES, DMSP, or LANL – larger in impact than one satellite but nevertheless part of a larger whole

… and suggestions for concrete steps So what should we do? (1)brainstorm on what expertise and knowledge is needed to make DASI happen – with this in mind establish a DASI steering committee (look to CAWSES, ICESTAR, GEM, CEDAR, etc). (2)host system-level science definition workshops – choose five grand challenge themes. (3)use the outcome of (2) to establish observational requirements for DASI sites. (4)devote resources to developing a web accessible data base for capacity surveys. (5)carry out the capacity surveys – make them complete, searchable, useable, and updatable. (6)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. (7)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. (8)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 USA (NSF), Canada (CSA), Denmark, and Mexico. (9)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.) (10)engage instrument teams, modellers, data assimilation experts, and of course funding agencies and implement enhancements established in (8)

The science?? DASI would address “System Level Science” We need the exciting and clearly elucidated science questions This is non-trivial – think of what was involved in the mission definition for the Geospace Storm Probes, or Cross-Scale, or any other large and complex program. This is no different. We need to do the same thing (mission definition), to develop a set of themes that make what are otherwise viewed as contextual observations or more of the same more exciting… what is new and why is it exciting? I am not sure how this can or would happen but we face the same thing in KuaFu-B (why are imaging missions are hard to sell?). This is definitely beyond one person… but if I can put forward some thoughts…  evolution of structure in cosmic plasmas (classical, SOC, and more)  role of interaction between major system elements in the overall dynamic  the science of sensor webs

A Rejuvenated ILWS GB-TG (in brief) Make a smaller more focussed group Spend time working with various groups defining “system level science objectives” Develop requirements for a DASI-like global network One agency sponsor a web-based data-base to accomplish a global inventory of capacity Avoid the data issue (it’s being done) Avoid reproducing efforts like CAWSES, IHY, eGY etc. Initiate a “science at the networks level” program (international complement to DASI) Assess what we do and what others do - Change “the way we do what we do” Utilize this global initiative to provide ground-based complementary observations Do it! But… we need some direction from you…

Thank You