1. Upper Atmosphere Research Section Facility Workshop MIT/Haystack Observatory September 23-24, 2008

2. 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?

3. The Upper Atmospheric Facilities Program Started in 1986 Initial objectives The incoherent scatter radar chain –Jicamarca –Arecibo –Millstone –Chatanika

4. 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

5. AO 1962 JRO 1963 MH 1962 SRF 1982 The NSF Incoherent Scatter Radar Chain-2006 Sondrestrom (SRF) Millstone Hill (MH) Arecibo (AO) Jicamarca (JRO) AO 1962 JRO 1963 MH 1962 SRF 1982 The NSF Incoherent Scatter Radar Chain-2007 Sondrestrom (SRF) Millstone Hill (MH) Arecibo (AO) Jicamarca (JRO) AMISR- Poker Flat PFR 2007 AO 1962 JRO 1963 MH 1962 SRF 1982 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)

6. SuperDARN 2008

7. Consortium of Resonance and Rayleigh Lidars

8. UAF Funding Breakdown Total: $11.9M

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Workshop Agenda September 23 Morning Session-Bob R. Chair 8:30 – 9:00Welcome, introductions, and remarks—Bob Robinson Existing Facility Presentations (Rewards and challenges of operating facilities; best practices, budget realities, community expectations, etc) 9:00 – 9:20Millstone--Foster 9:20 – 9:40Arecibo--Gonzalez 9:40 – 10:10Sondrestrom and AMISR—Kelly and Heinselman 10:10 – 10:30Break 10:30 – 10:50SuperDARN--Ruohoniemi 10:50 – 11:10Jicamarca--Hysell 11:10 – 11:30 CCMC--Hesse 11:30 – 11:50 CRRL--Robinson 11:50 – 1:00Lunch September 23 Afternoon Session-Paul B. Chair Presentations by potential new facilities 1:00 – 1:20THEMIS Ground-Based Observatory--Mende 1:20 – 1:40NSRO and FASR--Bastian 1:40 – 2:00MLSO and COSMO--Tomczyk 2:00 – 2:20Solar-C--Lin 2:20 – 2:40Spaceship Earth--Evenson 2:40 – 3:00Break 3:00 – 3:20PENGUIn--Lessard 3:20 – 3:40Murchison WFA--Lonsdale 3:40 – 4:00GONG and SOLIS--Hill 4:00 – 4:20Northridge Solar Observatory--Chapman 4:20 – 4:40SMEI—Jackson 4:40 – 5:00LISN – Cesar Valladares 5:00 – 5:30General Discussion Group Dinner September 24 Morning Session 9:00 – 12:00 Discussion led by Paul Bellaire and Rich Behnke