1. Some Thoughts on Ground-Based Observations Eric Donovan – Beijing China – July 22, 2006 with J. Kozyra, Ridley, M. Candidi, J. Foster, J. Sojka, and others 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 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). We want to add to, but not duplicate, these efforts. Key focus of this talk: DASI – Distributed Arrays of Small Instrumentation.

2. Ground-Based is Sexier than we Thought!

3. From CEDAR “Frontiers” Networks and Chains… (1)of the 36 submissions to the recent CEDAR “Frontiers” session, at least 18 made mention of the need for global and regional scale networks (2)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.) (3)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?

4. Look to Other Examples 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

5. THEMIS is an excellent example of integrated GB and satellite borne observations with a clear science objective For Example

6. THEMIS GBO Program as a DASI Microcosm For Example International (formally US, Canada) Multi-instrument (white light ASI, mag) Multi-agency (NASA, CSA) It will grow in nations involved (UK, Norway, China, Finland, …) It will grow in instruments (color imagers, riometers, SuperDARN, AMISR, etc).

7. CGSM as a DASI Microcosm For Example National (Canada) Multi-instrument (ASI, MSP, riometer, fluxgate mag, induction coil mag, HF radar, F10.7 solar monitor) One-agency (CSA) It will grow in instruments (GPS, FPI, imaging riometer, MF radar, etc) Key aspects could be “franchised”

8. Multi-Instrument Site Capability – Could be Franchised For Example

9. Multi-Instrument Site Capability – Could be Franchised For Example

10. And the franchise chain could grow… For Example Instrument AInstrument BInstrument C Instrument N ● ● ● ● ● Housekeeping LAN firewall The Internet

11. And the franchise chain could grow… For Example 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 M3 Site M6 Site M5 Site M4 Site M2 Site M1 Site M0Site F0 CGSMMERIDIANMIRACLE

12. What do we have to build on? 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, etc. etc. Each nation should sponsor an inventory of capacity

13. What do we have to build on? 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, etc. etc. Each nation should sponsor 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!

14. Take the ASIs as one example The Data Issue – GB is Key One imager produces 5,000,000 images/year. 50 imagers produce 250,000,000 images/year. In 5 years we may have >1 Billion images, with a volume >100 TB. The imagers are not inter-calibrated, do not operate in identical modes, are not synchronized… and on and on. And … the worst thing is all of this data is needed and it must be accessible quickly!

15. Make data products that facilitate rapid extraction of knowledge from presently unmanageable masses of information. The Data Issue – GB is Key

16. Make data products that facilitate rapid extraction of knowledge from presently unmanageable masses of information. The Data Issue – GB is Key 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.

17. GAIA VSPO VGO VMO/U VSO SSDP VITMO CDAWEB VMO/G MADRIGAL SPIDR ASTROGRID GeoSpace Data Environment Best Case Scenario

18. GAIA VSPO VGO VMO/U VSO SSDP VITMO CDAWEB VMO/G MADRIGAL SPIDR ASTROGRID Numerous virtual observatories with well thought out complementary mandates, each carrying out a well- defined task well, all interacting automatically with each other and the world. GeoSpace Data Environment Best Case Scenario

19. GAIA VSPO VGO VMO/U VSO SSDP VITMO CDAWEB VMO/G MADRIGAL SPIDR ASTROGRID Worst Case Scenario GeoSpace Data Environment

20. GAIA VSPO VGO VMO/U VSO SSDP VITMO CDAWEB VMO/G MADRIGAL SPIDR ASTROGRID Numerous virtual observatories with massively overlapping mandates, all doing more or less the same thing, all independent of one another, and none doing it well! Worst Case Scenario GeoSpace Data Environment

21. Article 1: Data access Earth system data and information should be made available electronically with interoperable approaches that facilitate open access. Article 2: Data release Owners, custodians and creators of Earth system data should work together to share their digital information with the world community, though in a manner that respects propriety requirements and security constraints. Article 3: Data discovery Providers and users of Earth system data and information should share descriptions of structure, content, and contexts to facilitate the discovery of relationships within and between information resources. Article 4: Data persistence Past and present data and information about the Earth system should be preserved and sustained in accessible formats that are both software and hardware independent for use today and in the future. Article 5: Data rescue Effort should be made to identify and rescue critical Earth system data and ensure persistent access to them. Article 6: Common standards and cooperation Standards for interoperability should be identified, created and implemented through international collaboration. Article 7: Capability building Communities with advanced information technology and communications capabilities should contribute to developing such capabilities in other communities to reduce the digital divide. Article 8: Education and public outreach Students, scientists, decision-makers, and the public should be informed about and be enabled to contribute to the discovery of Earth system phenomena that impact human survival. Data Ethos – Declaration of the eGY

22. DASI ILWS should sponsor activities that… (1)clarify the science objectives for DASI -> “what questions are we trying to address?” (2)from 1 – establish DASI instrument complement (MF radars, FPIs, ASIs, mags, etc??) (3)from 1 & 2 – establish necessary density of different instrument types (4)from 1, 2 & 3 – establish classes of DASI observatories (superstations down to GPS units) (5)establish what is already out there (capacity surveys) (6)develop protocols for managing DASI station network (site management, telemetry, standards, etc) (7)develop protocols for managing the DASI data (virtual observatories, data environment, etc) (8)implement DASI Phase I (call it Proto-DASI) It is inevitable that… (1)there will be a proliferation of ground-based geospace instrumentation (2)It should become easier to retrieve the data from these in real time (3)it should become easier to have higher resolution data than the real time operation affords (4)it should become easier to integrate data from disparate sources, programs, instruments, etc. (5)all of this will become increasingly international (6)in developing a global initiative called DASI there will be a lot we can draw on

23. DASI Towards some recommendations (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…. by 60 and give 10 so a professor in some developing country… this increases coverage, brings in a new player, and makes the world a better place! (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 (7)Must be adopted by a formal organization – someone must to take ownership of DASI now

24. Concrete Steps So what should we do – DASI Phase I – Towards the next Solar Maximum (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 several DASI science 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 Canada (CSA), USA (NSF), 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)

26. Thank You