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.

GEOSummit 2014 Meeting Archive and Summary

The GEOSummit 2014 Meeting was held on the 31st of January at the Goddard Space Flight Center. The meeting brought together national and international researchers with projects both active and proposed at the station. The main goal of the meeting was to inform the community of the numerous developments on site and to ‘take a pulse’ of the scientific activities.

All the presentations are archived here and available for download in PDF format.

12 March. SCO/CPS Call

attending: Bob, Jack, Katrine, Dave, Paul

As usual, this call started with an update on GLT from Paul and then
similar from Dave on LRP.

Paul reiterated that GLT was not going to ship anything to Greenland
this year, causing a slip in planned activities both in Thule and in
the Summit region. SCO asked if the slip was due to delays in the
retrofit of the telescope, or money issues (with Smithsonian and/or
Taiwan). Paul said that the retrofit was going a little slower than
expected, and was over budget, but that the real problems were that
the telescope team has not yet worked through a range of issues with
Gov of Greenland, and with Thule AFB.

Dave reported on the 28 Feb meeting between CPS and RSL focused on
Summit/Isi redevelopment plan and how to implement. His account was
in line with what SCO heard from NSF on 5 Mar, though he did mention
that it now seems likely there will be a face to face charette near
NSF sometime this spring (April?) to ensure that everyone is on the
same page as CPS develops bridging documents. He also mentioned that
there was some tension over how to efficiently plan for Isi assuming
no GLT, while fully expecting there would be this anchor tenant
bringing substantial requirements (and hopefully resources) into the
mix. Some of these issues were touched on during the P&E group
meeting the day before.

Dave also updated us on the search for a new Greenland Project
Manager (replacement for Jay Bollinger). CPS is interviewing
finalists and hopes to make a selection and offer soon.

Dave and Paul signed off at this point.

Katrine informed SCO that Abby Veirigg was delaying her Summit
deployment until 2015, and had asked CPS if they would consider
extending the casing on the DISC bore hole. We all agreed that we
did not like this idea if it could be avoided. Katrine noted that at
end of summer 2013 there was about a foot of the current casing above
grade, suggesting that if the location is kept flagged, the top
should be only ~ 1 m down by summer 2015. SCO asked whether the hole
created by the intermediate drill test taking place this season would
work for Abby in 2015. Not clear if the diameter of this hole will
be large enough: Katrine has task of asking Abby what size hole she
needs for the test, SCO (Jack) is to ask IDPO (Mark Twickler) what
the OD of the new drill barrel has been designed to. (Jack has not
seen Mark since the call, will email him to get answer).

Katrine asked SCO if the notes from GEOSummit had been made live on
our website. We told her that John had told us by email on 25 Feb
that all the presentations and the notes were uploaded into the media
library, but needed to have links created. He also indicated that he
expected the links would be working that day or the next. Katrine
said she was having no luck finding them (neither could we, at least
while still on the call). [Note, later that day Renee emailed SCO
with the same question, and very soon after the links were set up and
the presentations are now accessible.]

Katrine asked about the Summit GIS, and we were able to report that
progress is being made(see notes from the 4 Mar SCO telecom).
Katrine also said that she had changed the Summit tech tasking to
make collection of detailed information about all disturbances the
responsibility of specific person each phase. Previously, this was a
group task, and often got neglected since no one had ownership.

Katrine informed us that the CPS search for new Greenland Lead
Science PM was nearing the end of interviews phase, and they hoped to
have someone in place before 1 April. She also said that the job
description included tasking that sounded similar to some of the
things that she has been doing, so was not clear how her role going
forward would be modified. [Note, the next day (13 Mar) Katrine told
SCO that Jessy Jenkins had been offered and accepted the job, and
should be on board before the end of Mar. She also said she was
still not sure whether Jessy would become the new CPS POC for SCO, or
if they would work together in some fashion. SCO is standing by to
see how CPS decides to move forward on this.]

11 March. Polar Power Group

Attending Bob, Jack, Tracy
Dahl, Dave Smith, Martin Lewis, Jay Burnside Jen, Renee, Randy,
probably several more (definitely not on the call, Zoe, John,
Pat, Dick)

Primary focus of the call was to try to define areas of
agreement regarding an operational model for Isi.

Seems that we need to define a minimalist baseline in terms of
winter population, power demand, amount and types of inside
heated space that will be the core of Isi station and feed power
to AWO and the BH over at Summit.

Design of this core needs to be flexible to some extent, at
least able to handle increased summer time populations (probably
not berthing, but other essential life support functions), and
some amount of increased power in response to changing science
needs.

It is anticipated that large projects that demand more power than
the core can provide, and/or need to increase winter population
beyond space available in the core station will need to “provide”
the extra resources needed to support their work. Not yet clear
what is meant by having such groups provide their own resources.
It could mean that they need to provide funds (to RSL or CPS) to
procure infrastructure and supplies, with CPS designing and
operating the systems. Or, in some cases the group might be
responsible for designing/procuring and even operating their
required systems (for this group, a cogent example could be a
separate power system dedicated to the GLT and its control
modules).

Group seemed to favor CPS retaining control/responsibility for
infrastructure at Isi, based on the idea that a well designed
scaleable power grid would probably be more efficient over the
long run, thus more sustainable for RSL and future partners.
Difficult issue will be figuring out the accounting, especially
capital costs. We also noted that a single power grid, with most
components incorporated into the elevated core station, would
probably result in significant reduction in O&M costs over life
span of the station.

Lots of ideas, and also potential complications, were aired. So
far it does not seem that many decisions were reached, but we
likely identified a number of questions that need to be discussed
at the charrette.

Last 5 minutes of the call, switched to discuss the medium
voltage power cable back to Summit from Isi. Tracy wanted to
clarify whether the USAP model of maintaining access ports to
inspect the cable, and also to hold strain relief loops, would
work, or was necessary at Summit. His idea is to just direct bury
the cable. Not clear any trenching is needed. Randy suggested
that since it seems that RSL has agreed that if the cable can be
procured, shipped, and installed for < $0.5M, and the ROM for
current CPS plan is well under that cap, we should assume the
cable is in the plan and worry about details of the installation
later.

5. March SCO/NSF Call

SCO (Jack, John, Bob) discussed with NSF (Renee and Pat) the latest plan for Isi / Summit and the overall plans for the whitepaper. The Isi/Summit concept was a topic of discussion during the NSF/CPS meeting on 28. Feb. Renee and Pat provided a synopsis of the meeting. We discussed the importance of keeping the station ‘culture’ and ‘scale’ of activities a priority. The development of Isi/Summit will be constrained financially and the scope should be reflective of such constraints. Efficiency in operations, energy use, and use of physical and financial resources must be a first consideration.

In discussing the whitepaper, all commented that no feedback has been provided from the community since the workshop in Washington. The main priorities for moving forward are to define a clear requirement and audience for the document(s). The point was raised that in reality there are likely several documents that need to be available providing differing levels of detail. In some cases a two/three pager will provide the information that is required. In other cases the full Vision Document may be needed, and from this we should have a succinct executive summary. The Vision Document will essentially be a living document that encompasses all the research at the facilities.

4. March SCO Call

All SCO members were present to discuss the Agenda for the telcon with NSF tomorrow. Jack had sent around the agenda in advance, and there were no changes deemed necessary. It was felt that the two main points: White Paper and the Isi Concept (synopsis from 2/28 meeting) would easily fill 30 minutes. The topic of two important deliveries from the SCO that have yet to materialize was discussed. We recognize a need to get a better solution in place for the GIS so that we can get the historic data entry completed and have a web-enabled GIS system as proposed. Bob and John will discuss this matter further. John is going to travel to Greenland this summer also. The second deliverable is a station virtual tour. Something we recognize as long-overdue. The issue is whether to continue to await for the Google Maps solution, or just proceed with some pictures that Zoe collected last season. We all agreed that no matter the chosen path forward, both these items must be in place for this years reporting.