30 Sept SCO call

Jack, Zoe and Bob attending:

Started with a discussion of the meeting that Jay is calling to discuss support projects that will be included in APP4, the merit thereof. Zoe and Jack will be attending the Greenland Planning Conference in Scotia, in conflict with Jay’s telecon. Looking for an agenda for the 109th meeting in Scotia, so that we can determine if we need to be at both days of that trip. Determined that Bob can attend the telecon but not the 109th meeting (teaching responsibilities). Jack mentioned that we need to determine an agenda for our meeting with NSF on 1 Oct (wed).

Jack mentioned a meeting in Cambridge (AICI) and he’s been asked to talk at the meeting about Summit, and in particular about opportunities for Europeans to work there. This is a good thing to ask NSF on Wednesday’s call. Do we want to encourage a bigger campaign from the Europeans? Bob suggested a debrief from our previous call with Nature and Peter West.

Update on AGU, waiting to hear from ARCUS to see if the room is available. Bob mentioned that he may not be going to AGU- seems that there will be limited repercussions.

Bob updated the group on status and planning for the GIS data- there is a meeting today with a student and Dartmouth GIS specialist Jonathan Chipman to determine the next steps, and the student will be doing the work.

Discussion of updates to the website- looks like we are still waiting on a few things, including a summary of the 2014 season.

18 Sept SCO/CPS call

Paul, Matt, Jack, John, Bob attending

Update from telescope team. There is a meeting coming up, and hopefully more will be established about what is happening- sounds like the full budget is now known, and now the telescope (Smithsonian) folks need to find other partners to get the needed funding. Still planning to set up the telescope for initial work at CRREL in Hanover, then work to move it to Summit. Looking at the CRREL installation as a first step. Not looking at any definite schedule bump now, but some concerns were raised about the speed with which resources would need to be ramped up in order to keep to the schedule.

Matt gave updates from Kevin (ISI site planning) who’s not present. Discussing elevation and how to keep the drifting down. Initial schedule now calls for individual buildings to be elevated as they arrive onsite, rather than a single large platform on which buildings are erected. Hope to have a plan for circulation to SCO in the next week or so. Most buildings elevated, but a couple will be at surface level- notably the garage and a surface science facility for balloon launch. Still looking at the large platform concept, but probably a secondary plan.

Matt’s updates- NASA contacted SCO and CPS about a borehole proposal for 2017. This is one that SCO does know about, communications are sometimes tricky with different people cc’d in different places, and multiple project staff contacting CPS directly. Project wants to drill close to the GISP2 hole, we discussed the difficulties of placing them 50 meters from the hole- figured that 500 m would be easier and difficult to discern a solid science reason for being that close.

Meeting with FEMCO about Neely project, feasibility of sending up a structure to house the optics. Seems a challenge at the moment while we are setting up a new ISI station, to put another one-off structure up there, but things are moving forward with at least a quote. The project is moving forward with mock-ups in Boulder. Jack urged Matt to do his best to convince Ryan and Mike that they would be well served to request the space they truly need, resisting temptation for scope and space (cost) creep. There are several reasons that the new system won’t co-exist well in the MSF, including safety (eye-safety for the laser), climate control (new laser requires a significant temperature stability that will be a challenge to achieve), and simply space with the existing equipment in the MSF. There was also a discussion of the eye-safety of the laser, how it may affect flight operations.

Discussion from Jessy’s updates on the Vieregg project. Jack asks where exactly the installation wants to be. Needs to be away from RF interference, but still get power from Greenhouse or Bighouse. Data acquisition gear would be in the house as well. NSF has approved that if she finds non-NSF funding, she can work there and CPS will direct bill her for support.

Looking at a possible mid-November flight for critical parts for the TWTA- Twin Otter from Iceland.

Discussion of the SCO outbrief. Many of the aspects of the outbrief are actually not that applicable to our project, but we had some feedback for CPS.

Final point, the discussion of the amount of packaging that gets shipped to Greenland- there is a great deal of packaging relative to the amount of actual materials. Could there be some system of repackaging things that are going to Greenland so that the packaging materials can be recycled stateside?

Call concluded at 11:20 local.

16 Sept SCO call

John, Bob and Jack attending.

We discussed the CPS outbrief, which Matt wants to conduct during our call 18 Sept. He provided the standard template, Zoe and John each suggested responses to several of the questions. We agreed that Jack will insert draft responses for all remaining questions to share with SCO for input/refinement before the call with CPS.

Discussed the website, noting that the virtual tour and web-served GIS functions are great prototype versions, but that both probably need work. Also that we seem a bit behind on posting these notes and that we are probably overdue for the next newsletter. Jack mentioned that we need to scan the entire site and update all references to Katrine, replacing her with Matt and/or Jessy as appropriate.

Regarding the GIS, we all agreed that we need to focus on getting more historical information into the data base. Expectation is that having more data available will make the community more likely to contribute the location information about their past and future disturbances. Discovered a small communication breakdown between Bob and John: Bob has been waiting for historical data (2008-2013) that John has already sent. They are going to figure this out and hopefully get a bunch of processed data into the data base soon. John also noted that there are additional observations that need processing, he will work on those.

For the next newsletter we agreed to announce the availability of the tour and GIS, remind the community that the next GEOSummit meeting will be in Boulder in May, probably announce a forum at AGU (assuming we get time in the ARCUS community room), and summarize the science projects that were at Summit this past summer. John offered to make first draft of the latter, incorporating links to any blogs or websites the different groups set up.

We also agreed that Bob would take over the notes from these meetings from now until he goes to Antarctica in October, with John taking over then for about a month.

4 Sept SCO/CPS call

Telescope update: The telescope has been working on an estimate for the telescope project, which was finished in the preceding week. The telescope group met with ALEX for a follow-up meeting. The planned ASIAA/SOA meeting is now scheduled for mid-Oct.

LRP update: The Summit/Isi site plan is being finalized with minor adjustments to areas on the plan that have been designated clean air/non clean air. CPS has discussed the implications of moving the skiway with ANG.

There has been one estimate produced for the Mobile Garage, which came out higher than the $750k cap when associated costs are factored in. CPS has been asked to prioritize upgrades to Isi, and to write a project engineering document (which is similar to a charter) to document each sub-project. The plan CPS was considering was to procure modules, put them on the snow at first, then elevate the buildings (on legs) as more funds become available. SCO raised a few concerns with this approach, as we are very reluctant to have surface structures be put in place in the fear that funding will not be available to raise the structures. One idea that has been resurrected is a previous Model (2 or 3) which consisted of first building a large platform, and then placing the current structures on the platform (following the Neumeyer station example).

We also discussed the SUPR lidar project, as the project is requesting a separate building to be constructed/procured for the instrument. We were given a sketch of the proposed building, which could be brought up to Summit in a Herc. There was some discussion about whether one of the existing small science buildings (FLUX or the Bally Building) could be used instead. Related, the temperature in MSF has been stabilized through work done during the summer.

SCO updates: We are planning tagging a GEOSummit meeting onto the NOAA GMAC meeting, which is planned for May 19 and 20, most probably planning for the GeoSummit meeting to take place on May 21. Matt gave us the heads’ up on a NASA drilling project that is being proposed for Summit. We had a few questions (i.e. if core was going to be recovered, if it was a new drilling system, where the project wanted to be located, etc.), but no major concerns about the project.

3 Sept SCO/NSF call

The topic of discussion for this call with NSF was how to move forward with developing the Summit/Isi long range plan into a living document, and the role SCO should take in the development, using the Toolik Long Range Plan as a model. We do have the basis of the science justification for Summit/Isi in the white paper SCO has been working on. Pat would like to see this version of the white paper updated and then combined with the CPS scoping document that should be done by the end of the year. SCO would like to update the current white paper by soliciting community input (this has been done, but a more targeted approach is warranted). Pat would also like us to use the complete Model 5 document set as a basis for the LRP as a whole.

As a separate topic, Renee supports the idea of SCO hosting a meeting at AGU for interested Summit community members. Action item: Zoe will contact ARCUS to reserve a meeting time in the ARCUS rooms at AGU.

2 Sept SCO call

We discussed the agenda for the SCO/NSF call, and discussed at length how to get the LRP process back on track in a timely manner. We also discussed Jack’s site visit, and some of the concerns (inside berthing vs. tents for the carpenters, the new berthing unit, trying to reduce waste in the form of shipping boxes).