28 Aug GLRP Isi Site Plan

attending: SCO, ALEX, NSF, 109th, CPS, NOAA

This call centered around coming to a consensus on which of two different proposed Isi layouts to proceed with. In both layouts, the skiway is east of the station, with AWO 1km west of the station and the telescope 1.7km north of the station. One option (Option 5A) had the skiway further east than the other option (Option 3A).

Jack discussed the tradeoffs, with one being the concern of emissions from the Hercs, and the other being the additional operational costs, and emissions, if camp is located further away from the skiway, as well as bringing up a big question of where the apron really needs to be, i.e. having the apron half way down the skiway would reduce operations (Paul seemed amenable to this). An option of shifting the apron ¾ way down the skiway was also discussed. Jack mentioned that what would be ideal for the 109th would be to have the apron right at camp on the far northern end.

Paul mentioned that the most important factor for them is the northern boundary, and that if the 109th has a missed approach when they have low visibility they need to be able to avoid any structures when they turn around.

Jay asked if the 109th will need weather observations from the skiway or if they could be from the Summit camp proper. This will depend on the discussion of the max distance where NOAA will move their equipment and where the skiway will be. Brian said that NOAA could deploy a second AWS, and Paul said that one with a met suite like the AWS’s deployed in Antarctica would work well.

Jay asked if there would be a 50 m tower. Most likely there will be, with Bo Grimes being the contact to ask about that for the telescope.

We then discussed the problems the 109th have had taking off…it is possible that a longer skiway would have led to fewer slides. The 109th only keeps track of the number of slides to take off, not the other conditions. The option of changing the time of day for the flights was discussed, but early morning flights generally have foggy conditions, with afternoon flights being warmer, and leading to problems.

Doing a snow drift study once the foundation is placed was also discussed. The skiway will need to be moved in 2016 because the foundation will be too big for skiway ops.

14 Aug. GLRP call

CPS, SCO, NSF, ALEX, CRREL

This extended call was centered on the Mobile Garage bridging document comments and edits.

The first discussion item was the sled design. After discussion with CRREL (Lever), the CPS design team decided to focus on the HMW design, and not further pursue the ski design. Lever believes that HMW sleds like the ones already used for the traverse fuel sleds can be used as the garage base. These sleds are a proven design. Jack did ask how the pieces would be attached to one another and/or to the garage, but Jim assured everyone that there are several means of attachment (i.e. slots in the HMW).

The floor was the next discussion topic, with a resulting action item to determine what the South Pole garage floor is made of. Martin believes it is an epoxy-coated steel diamond plate. It does show sign of wear, but it is believed to be a good solution.

The reviewer comments were then discussed in detail. The DA comments (from Dick Armstrong) were first discussed. It is uncertain if there needs to be a full short circuit analysis, but CPS will look into that. The outlets will be flush mounted, and placed at a height of 5’. Tracy suggested adding a CO monitor to the system, which everyone agreed would be a good idea. We next discussed the use of max/min temperature data to drive the design, and how that is a potential overdesign. Dick informed the group that ASHRE standard is to use 97.5% of the coldest temperature. SCO and Stan took it as an action item to get temperature data from NOAA including the duration of the coldest temperatures.

In the current bridging documents, a ventilation system for exhaust in the building had been eliminated, but it was generally agreed that this ventilation system is needed for health and safety.

The next major topic of discussion is the possibility that GrIT would not be able to make it to Summit, and possible contingencies that should be addressed if this were to be the case; namely, that pre-assembled building pieces should be sized so that they could also be shipped via a Herc.

The lifecycle duration of the building was discussed. It is currently listed as 15 years, but Tracy suggested that up to 40 years is acceptable for federal buildings. CPS decided in the end to not specify the lifecycle that long, as it would be hard to ensure/guarantee.

5 June. GLRP

In this call, the value engineering for the mobile garage is discussed in more detail, and CPS presents additional work that has been done in determining if the concept will work for the needs of the station.  In particular, the mezzanine has been made taller so that the 953 can fit under the mezzanine, and the working clearance needed around the vehicle has been discussed (i.e. Martin would like 8 ft on each side of the bay around the vehicle to allow for mechanics to have enough room to work).    There had been discussion of removing the stairs to add working space, but the stairs are needed for egress (a 3ft stair would be acceptable, however).  There will be more follow up with operational personnel to determine if the current concept will work.  The mezzanine would mostly contain manuals, a workstation for 2 people, and tool storage.   The possibility of having a smaller SAR vehicle in the future was also brought up, but the vehicle needs to be large enough to at least accommodate a litter, limiting the reduction in size that is possible.  

22 May. GLRP

Mobile garage report:  Two main items of concern addressed in the report are whether the plan is financially and operationally viable.   It was decided to wait for Martin Lewis’s trip to Summit for him to assess whether the concept of a 28’x44’ garage will meet the operational needs.  Waiting for his trip, scheduled beginning of June, might mean that the bid would not go out with year, and that the garage materials would be on the 2016 vessel, which would get to Summit in 2017.  The bridging documents need to be started in order to get the project moving forward.
NOAA GMAC meeting: update as to whether NOAA is ok with the change to the Summit/Isi development plans, and as to whether or not there would be a requirement to have measurements made in both places if the separation is only 3 miles apart.  We are waiting for a NOAA memo from Brian Vasel and Jim Butler addressing these concerns.
Summer population housing: The group discussed various options for summer berthing for overflow populations past the core facility populations.  It was agreed that summer housing needs to be off the grid, and collapsible/movable at the end of the season to avoid being buried (no permanent surface structures). SCO is still very much in favor of tents.  CRREL will provide updates on current SBIR efforts to develop inflatable structures.  Tracy will provide LCCA of tents vs. the SCUBE (small, flexible, mobile, self-powered units) concept.
Action items: SCO needs to help coordinate the balloon launch needs of various PIs (namely NOAA and ICECAPS).  CRREL is going to update the group on current SBIR efforts to develop inflatable structures.  Tracy is going to compare overall impact /cost of tents vs. SCUBE concept.  SCO will ask astrophysics interests what dark sector and radio silence sector requirements are.  CRREL will provide an update to the drift survey.  The group would like a topo map of the current station.

24 April GLRP

Value Engineering
Kevin Gibbons was introduced as the new Greenland project manager, Dave Smith will still be running the meetings for the time being; Kevin will listen on for a time before taking over.
Monique reviewed the Value Engineering concepts. Reiterated that we’re looking for ~850k USD savings. A spreadsheet of different Value Engineering Ideas (VEI) is provided in advance.
The discussions started with VEI 3, which is to remove power supply, so that the overall cost of procurement would fall more inline with the Kuchar estimate — which also did not include autonomous power. Jack raised issue that the value cost of the cable might need to be revisited given the shorter distances we are currently discussing in terms of separation between Summit and Isi. The VE worksheet estimates that not incorporating heat and power in the garage (plugging into the grid and possibly a glycol loop instead) would save almost $90k.
VEI 4 consists of a major reduction in vehicle storage space in the mobile garage and would include just one maintenance bay. This would lead to external storage of other vehicles (e.g. 953). Jack asked if there is a possibility of not using heavy equipment for moving snow to make water, and if there might be a lighter vehicle or better way to move snow to make water? There followed a lot of discussion revolving around whether the proposed design provides sufficient space. Overall, the feeling from the CPS team is that this option is a reduction in capacity/resources of the garage. Tracy pointed out that this would be less space, and less useable space from the existing shop. Renee suggested a ‘cold storage’ or minimally heated storage space that would house other equipment in a minimal and simple structure. This structure could be soft-sided (i.e. weatherport-like, less elaborate, and not as warm as the current garage).  A smaller footprint single bay comes close to entire savings. However, it must be noted that this concept would then require 2 smaller skid-mounted modules which would consist of a small garage bay to store a SAR vehicle, and a generator module to provide heat and power to the main garage. These 2 modules are estimated to cost a little over $225k, so the single bay garage alone saves over $1M compared to the original concept.VEI 5 consists of a reduction in R values. Pat questioned where the 5″ inch panels were sourced. Current R-values of SOB is on order of 28 (guess from Tracy). Pat feels R-51 is excessive, but R-40 is sufficient. VEI worksheet suggests that dropping down to R-40 insulation would only save $10K, or maybe less, but this option seems favored.Given the concern that a single bay really was not adequate, the group next examined VEI 15 which is a 40 x 40 structure with side by side equipment bays and 2 overhead doors. Monique mentions that VEI 15, saves 750k USD, close to what is required. Jack asked about whether 40 foot width specified in this VEI width is okay, which might make transport a challenge. Points brought up in this include the merits of being able to keep the loader inside in winter, and also whether the loader will get as much use in the winter as it does now. The size of this garage has huge benefits for operations, including being able to keep loader inside even if maintenance was occupying the 2nd bay. Jay pointed out that if the simple cold storage garage area suggested by Renee was an option, he could see that single bay maintenance garage might be workable. It was pointed out that while the dual bays in single building option was over the $750K procurement cap it was only $80K more than the single bay version. If we look at the other VEIs that were accepted by the group, it seems that by not putting heat and power in the new garage, going to lower R value, etc the estimated bottom line gets down to $745K, which is just barely under the target cost.    Pat said this might be workable, but that assumptions and estimates should be re-examined.  In particular, he questioned the need to have indoor storage for the 955 loader and if a smaller vehicle would work for winter water runs and maintaining access to surface mounted buildings/etc.The group went through other options, including several ways to provide heat and power for the mobile garage other than diesel generator and boiler.  A grid is preferred by the group over these other options. CPS had looked at using wooden SIPS instead of metal clad IP, they conclude that metal is cheaper (no need for separate exterior cladding) and lighter. Also looked at using heavy wood floor with steel plate only in select areas, analysis suggests this would actually cost more due to complexity of design and construction, and might give inferior performance.

 

10 April. GLRP/Isi Mobile Garage Value Engineering Exercise

Attending: SCO, NSF, SOA, CPS

This meeting is a revisit of the requirements gathering exercise for the Isi Mobile garage, with the main goal of closing the budget gap between the cost determined for the initial concept for the garage (cost estimates have been provided by CPS and a second engineering firm) and the budget. It should be noted that this gap was projected to be substantial, with RSL looking for procurement cost not to exceed $750K and a strong preference for something closer to $500K expressed.  The concept design that came out of the series of exercises over the past months was almost $900K over the RSL ceiling, hence more than $1.3M higher than ideal target.

15 possible options for reducing costs were discussed, with two major cost-savings options discussed at length: 1. reducing the square footage and 2. creating a series of smaller buildings to house the separate components of the garage, assuming that the individual pieces could be procured in different years to spread the cost.  The main consensus was that breaking the project into smaller pieces to spread the cost was not viable.  Therefore we need to redesign the concept to include just a single working bay in the garage based on the width and height of the widest and heaviest tractor, and the length of the longest tractor. This should reduce the overall size of the sled mounted garage by approximately half compared to the concept, which included space to store the 2006 Tucker and 953 loader, and also a maintenance bay for the largest piece of equipment on station.

Noted that if cost scales directly with square footage of heated space, this reduction in scope would still leave budget gap of well over $100k so other possibilities moving forward to reduce costs include having a separate generator module, removing the mezzanine, reducing the R-factor to R40 or below, and using non-metal flooring for areas outside where the vehicles would be moving.

While not discussed very much during the call, the reduced scope of the new garage concept does not include any shared space for science, especially including balloon launching.  It has been recognized that Isi will probably need some kind of surface science space for summer campaign work and year-round balloon launching, but we need to find an option to support these functions during the transition to Isi from Summit (as soon as SOB is decommissioned, possibly as early as 2015.

 

13 March. LRP Call

Bob on for entire call, Jack last 25 minute, lots of others

Dave leads. Trying to get some concurrence on ISI mobile garage
concept.

Turned over to Monique. Discussion of building size and budget.
Trying to figure out if there’s a way to include space for possible future micro-turbines. Could there be a separate 10×12 space for a microturbine? furthermore Dick suggests that this could be the welding-rated space, in case the welding rating is driving an elevated cost of the whole space. Monique asks if we really need a mezanine. Seems to be general consensus that the mezanine is the best square footage for money and so keeping that space is important. Next question- desirability of roof access? resounding silence. doesn’t sound like there’s a great need for this kind of access.

Space for vehicles. What is the minimum requirement for vehicle storage and maintenance? Decided that the maintenance space needs to be as large as the largest
vehicle, and that the tucker needs to be in there for SAR. The loader and D7 can be stored outside. Bob pointed out that we really don’t _need_ to have the snowmobiles inside, it’s a “nice to have” more than anything else. They are used once a month…

Now Monique talking about shortening the building by one bay, to 40×60 ft. How do we now keep the mezanine space? Small discussion of the Arctic Entries. Do we really need them? Jack points out that all non-essential things need to be kept out, as this building is too big! Probably does not need to be 40 feet wide, since that width allows 2 vehicles next to each other as well as nose to tail (concept showed 3 heavy vehicles and 3 skidoos inside at same time.

Discussion of the doors- a roll-up door is preferred.

19 Feb. TAWO Users Group Telcon

present: Brandon Grey Detelev Bob martin Tracy jack Katrine + A few
more.
Katrine running the call.
1) Air handling system, status and what’s up. Brandon gives us an
update on status. In Nov, 2 concerning heat spikes in TAWO, this is
all due to waste heat from the instruments. Brandon things that due
to the south wind, positive pressure was placed on the North duct.
Ultimately the conclusion is that we don’t have the exhaust volume
needed. wanting to try to limp along to wait for AWO. will be
extending the north duct to the base of the platform, as opposed to
the base of the building. Looking to avoid that positive pressure on
the duct. Also will replace the T sensor in the air handling system-
may not be the problem, but could be, so replacing it will help.
Installing a remote monitoring system at turnover (now) so that
on-site staff can respond in real-time to any future T spikes. Jack
asks about if there’s a blower- right now it’s passive, so just
positive pressure in the building blowing air out. Only active fan is
for emergency purge. Detlev asks if there’s also active heating in
TAWO. There is a wall-mounted heater, but it wasn’t on at the time.
All of the heat in these T spikes was from the instruments. Detlev
asks if it is feasible to have a backup system? Brandon reiterates
that any better design would entail enlarging the exhaust, a pretty
big undertaking. Jack asks if the extra length will offset the
venturi effect we will get by extending the exhaust to the base of the
platform… Brandon feels that getting that extra 2 feet will help.
Jack voices concern that the scour pattern under the building might
make the wind pattern less predictable- so there may well be an
updraft that would negate that effect. Jack suggests what about
pointing the duct upward. Brandon says we’ll take a look at that.
Wondering if there are any concerns from NOAA for an upward facing
exhaust. No NOAA-specific concerns, but there is concern about it
filling up with snow. NOAA doesn’t think any exhaust is a concern.
Brandon asks if they can use the South penetration instead of the
North wall. Some clarification to Jacques about the ventilation
system. Again question about activating the active exhaust, but this
is designed for life safety applications, not considering the actual
T. Grey has drawn up a T that would shield from updraft… could
work. Jacques is a bit concerned about getting drafts of cold air
around the GC so the south penetration would work. Detlev points out
there are several instruments that would not like big pressure
changes. Using the south duct will probably get us closer to having
en equal amount of outlet to inlet. Having a second outlet would
probably be used at all times. In a purge situation they’d close the
South side so that purge would come out of the North side with the
existing fan. Finally, Brandon will explore the S penetration, and
explore directing the ducts upward.

2) Lifting the building. Katrine brings us back to this 20 minutes
left in the call. Katrine puts the question to Brian and Detlev.
Both point out that whatever it takes they will deal with it.
Detlev asks why there is another lift when there was a lift last
year? Brandon responds that they were 12 feet above grade on S
side and 8 feet above on the N side, about an 8 foot lift. CRREL
had recommended a larger lift- 15 feet being a happy medium between
minimizing drifting and keeping the stair climb to a reasonable
level. Jack points out that dealing with the drift at TAWO is a
Sisyphean task. You can spend a bunch of time and diesel knocking
down the drift, and it comes back. Jack points out also that the
more money we send on TAWO, the less likely it will ever go away.
points out the true costs of lifting… Brian points out that we
can’t just leave TAWO as it is for 3 more years. Brian thinks
drift management is something we could consider. Katrine says we
haven’t been doing drift management… Brian points out that it’s
not working… lots of discussion around how to keep the drift
down, why our management isn’t working. In the end, Brian suggests
that hes willing to wait until 2015 to see. Katrine suggests taking
pictures during turnover, and then have CPS see what they think,
with the ideal situation to be wanting to push the lift out
to 2015.

30 January Greenland Long Range Planning group

Paul Kenney ran the meeting, not clear if he is acting as Jay Bollinger interim replacement for all projects Jay was responsible for, or just going to take on these meetings until someone replaces Jay.

Rather than working down the agenda, Paul used the minutes from previous call to guide discussion, asking for updates based on what was discussed 2 weeks prior.

Dave Smith reported that he hoped to be able to update and circulate the graphic schedule much more often moving forward, in order to reflect changes that come up due to focused discussions on a number of projects that are gathering momentum (especially planning for Isi).

Dave also noted that the charters for Isi Mobile Garage and new Power/Water Module for Summit had been revised and would be circulated again soon.

Tracy summarized the discussion of the 28 Jan Power and Energy call and also noted that work on detailed analysis of the power cable that might link Summit Observatory to Isi station had begun. While there is still more work needed to get good estimate of full cost to procure, transport, install and maintain such a cable, Tracy did say that knowing the distance (5 km) and assuming that max load at Summit would be capped well below 50 kw made it clear that much smaller conductors than the ones Jud Joiner had priced in earlier analysis would be sufficient. This should greatly reduce procurement and shipping costs.

Discussion of the microturbine CHP proposal Dick is leading detoured into discussion of a need for pilot project to establish whether the Capstone devices will function at a place like Summit. All agree that this needs to be done, but the $300 k price tag for a complete dual turbine module with all the necessary peripherals is prohibitive for a simple test. Pat tasked Tracy to contact Capstone to get pricing for just a 30 kw unit with necessary switch gear, and see if it would be possible to use the intermediate drill test as the pilot project. Time line is very likely too short, but Tracy will look into it. He asked that Pat make it clear to Dick that the tasking came direct from RSL. Apparently Dick feels that the test might not be fair to the Capstone microturbines if their unit was just in a small weather port without the protection/tempering of intake air/heat exchangers/etc. that would be part of any system eventually deployed to Summit for longer term.

Isi Scoping Document charter revised again based on comments from SCO and others. Discussions with stakeholdes and SME’s need to begin soon. Monique has proposed dividing these meetings into 4 or 5 topical areas, so that most could be smaller, focused discussions by highly interested participants. There may be one large group discussion about programmatic guidelines that will inform all of the smaller subject area groups.

GLT, Paul confirmed that Roberto and his team have decided that nothing will be shipped to Thule on the vessel this year. CPS will have significant effort preparing for the following season, and is submitting a CR to support the early phases of that.

NASA Rover team reported that now that NASA has a budget, they should learn what their budget will be soon, possibly at a meeting with HQ the first week in Feb. Their timeline for bringing anything to Summit will be determined by NASA funding profile.