Docstoc

Minutes of the Spring 2007 Global Seismographic Network Steering

Document Sample
Minutes of the Spring 2007 Global Seismographic Network Steering Powered By Docstoc
					Minutes of the Spring 2007 Global Seismographic Network Steering Committee
Feb. 26,27, 2007, La Jolla, CA

Attendees:
K. Anderson, R. Butler, S. Bilek, P. Davis, J. Berger, D. McCormack, J. Ritsema, M.
Ishii, F. Niu, J. Park, L. Gee, D. Green, B. Leith, A. Leeds, J. Derr, B. Varnum, B.
Detrick

Feb. 26, 2007
8:20 am
       Welcome from PD (Scripps) and JP
       Charge of committee – what is the core mission of the GSN?

8:30 am
       minutes of fall 06 meeting reviewed, powerpoints from that meeting uploaded for
       view, no comments, KA reviews action items
       #1 – done
       #2 – IDA investigate possible Tujkistan site, made some connections
       #3 – H20, BoD accepted plan, closed out soon
       #4 – ASL isolated STS-2s – moving forward
       #5 – performance assessment for GSN – info in upcoming presentation, moving
       forward
       #6 – station quality report, moving forward, details on Tues.
       #7 – papers on ANSS backbone, 1 done, 2 almost done, 3 not yet

       motion to accept minutes, seconded and unanimous approval

8:35 am Budget update (RB)
       status on current year budget
       3,182,295 new NSF
       542k carryover plus CTBTO income
       total 3725100
       reserved 389,335 (BoD last year held back ~600k, groups compete for use)
       total 4114435
       late Aug 06, NSF defer to FY2007 after Oct (IRIS funded 270° out of phase w/
               NSF due to delays)
               Targets for deferment: GSN 214585 (reduce buying STS2,
               microbaragraphs, epicenters, 1 set of DAS, KS54000 repairs (all from
               reserve, not from core)
       Carryover approved by GSNSC and BoD in Oct06 (160k)
               40k – site prep for new stations
               85k – STS2 repairs
               25k – station development
               5k – DART collaborations
               5k – NGS DAS equipment
       No Fed budget until Feb07, no guidance on ―deferred funds‖
               Most core activities still ongoing
               A few activities in carryover/deferred funds still in question
       Carryover tasks to be done before June 30, 2007
               ASL – MACI, SLBS, TARA, KANT site preps
       Still may be deferred $ (214k), but may be folded into July 1 funding by BoD
       Need priority list like last year to fight for $

       This year’s budget:
              Spent all carryover funds (all old money from previous 5 yr agreement)
              Projected carryover + other sources of income
                      Salary savings 35k (part of KA & RB salaries paid from Polar and
                      USArray funds)
                      CTBTO income: 43k
                      Polar MRI (0.1 FTE) for KA

       Guidance from IRIS President and BoD:
               Define core services – keep GSN going vs innovations
                       (be able to tell NSF and community what we can’t do)
               Identify synergies w/ USArray (likely more connections with DMC than
               GSN)
               target budget 3.4M (including G&A of ~11%)
                       Define priorities if additional funds available or if $ disappears
                       Full accounting (including G&A) now required
       Still don’t have formal prospects from NSF
               Looking for linear increase in IRIS, but possible it may be flat

       ? BL – did old budget of 3.1M include G&A (RB – no)

       Budget is basically flat w/r/t last year, and don’t have carryover floating around,
       so will have less latitude this year.

9:05: Operation Managers report (KA)
       credit to network operators for all the hard work
       give report on operations status, ANSS backbone, Polar MRI update

       144 stations in GSN including IDA, USGS, Affliate stations
       New Caribbean stations have STS2, Q330, strong motion sensors (quasi-
       affiliates)
                possible reorganization for GSN – change more stations to affliate status
                        O&M costs given to host country
                ?DG: is there a document that describes technical specs for affliates?
                Butler: have meetings with folks, refer to GSN design goals
                        Some have a formal agreement, others informal (AFTAC)
                ?DG: do agreements specifically comment on O&M?
                RB: need give and take with each station (ex. Singapore station –
                problems with data flow, telemetry, prepared to revoke status in past)
?DG: would want to see clarity on 1) tech specs, 2) availability of data, 3)
comment on O&M, 4) soliciting additional members to become affliates
(what are the benefits to becoming one?)
RB: GSN does get contacted by other networks to become GSN, but don’t
want to duplicate FDSN, let them join FDSN and GSN works with FDSN

?DM: clarify- abolish affliates and move to FDSN?
RB: No, if affliate, added to the GSN virtual network for data requests but
not part of the GSN for $ support
Difference between FDSN and affliates – not all FDSN is distributed as
virtual GSN
Back to what is advantage to country to take on O&M – what to offer as
benefit to take on this task – pressure from top to address this issue
BL: relates to what is core and not core – back to GSN design goal: station
spacing and densification for science interest

Back to KA:
New stations done by USGS/Affliates
       Caribbean paid for by tsunami augmentation funds.
LG: waiting for construction company in Guantanamo (March-April)
       Jamaica close to signing MOU
       Turks and Caicos – may not be close to signing, maybe site in
       Bahamas if timing doesn’t work
       KBL reinstalled, need to discuss future with AFTAC
               AFTAC run for 2 years at least, then GSN?
               Pretty good station, could be very good if put in a borehole
               Data at DMC, response not yet at the DMC
KA: lots of USGS work
       IDA – new stations ABPO (equipment there, waiting for rain to
       stop), UAE supported with funding
       ASL: several sites under construction
               TARA: need to keep out water, typhoons a problem
               KANT: coast guard help, should arrive March w/ concrete
               MACI & SLBS: site contracts released, permits
               took long time
               carryover funds used
       Telemetry:
               Majority funded by USGS tsunami funds
               NOAA hub at PTWC useful for data transmission
               CTBTO $ some in process for telemetery for both
               ASL/IDA
               GSN > 93% connected in principal
       Temp. closed stations
               Some awaiting relocation
               MSKU back (now and then), sensor problems
               LG: Brazil customs problems, waiting on MOU
      needed in place for PTGA
      WAKE & BTDF – nature (typhoon and landslide)
GSN performance
      All 144 stations give % availability
      Very few doing poorly (75% doing 85% avail. or better)
      RB – SC defines what is a ―temp closed‖ station, can
      impact the network performance stats and funding requests
      ? DG – for customer, ―temp closed‖ not helpful, look at
      need for station distribution – is core service moving or
      fixing closed stations?
      Question about metric – raw data availability, slightly
      different depending on operator (ASL – sends everything,
      IDA culls ―no data‖ before going to DMC)
      ? JR – requirements for GSN? High reliability, data quality,
      but not a specific number now to say for the network
      ? BL – what would be needed to come up with a number?
      ? DM – need to have cost for different levels of
      performance – RB – can make estimate of costs to bring
      back rest of 10-15% of stations
      USGS – 90% long term target, 87% target for 2007
      ? AL – can there be flexibility in using field teams between
      backbone and GSN? Bodies waiting for Backbone sites
      that could be sent abroad
      LG – field work done at ASL – contracts w/ Honeywell to
      do field work, easier than getting USGS folks abroad,
      traditionally interplay w/ between USGS backbone folks
      and GSN in US, have 2 ANSS field engineers at ASL
      KA – big picture, how to operate network efficiently?
              Pool field teams/resources to work on projects as
              needed time and $ wise
GSN performance by network— stats in ppt
      ? DG – how often subnets sampled? KA- do for SC
      meetings, so 6 months, want to go to monthly reporting

Spot check for performance (all done 1 time, few weeks ago)
       Ex. 06 Kurile – 81% all, 88% adjusted (no temp closed)
       Older events have best availability
       IC – quasi-real-time
       ? DG – after tsunami legislation passed in Dec.06, more
       accounting for specific events required for PTWC
       part of Honeywell contract is to monitor spot checks for
       performance
       JP – metrics are important, need to clarify what datasets
       used, what is most useful for community

Latency – define time to DMC
                            At DCC, get data ~10 s
                            How to measure this number – not standardized w/ network
                            ?DM – can code by region?
                            ? DG – what are spikes past 10000? – KA
                            something getting 1 ping per day, gap problems, China
                            stations w/ 30 min delay
                            ? DM – is it a diff. in communication technology? Working
                            with DMC and DCC on standardizing metric
                            RB – also need to consider time to fill buffer at station,
                            telemetry time is ~10 s IDA, 26 ASL
                            JP – some are telemetry delays, some do have sign. delays
                            ~1 day), important to monitor health of network
                     ANSS – USGS working on performance issues w/ PA sites
                            VBMS – site work complete, no equip. yet
                     Polar MRI – efforts for remote autonomous stations (seismic and
                     geodetic) w/ UNAVCO
                            1 season done
                                    testbeds on South Pole, McMurto for temp.
                                    extremes
                            need community input for design – PNSC formed and
                            meeting in March to discuss 1st season efforts
                            beta version of systems to go out on OPP funded
                            experiments
                     Related polar work:
                            Cold Guralp needed for -55°C in ice
                            Finally received , tested, failed, returned to ASL, now
                            installed
                            Goal – low power, running on ~1W
                            Noisy, but not unexpected given station position in ice
                            Also GPS installed at QSPA
                            All done at no cost to IRIS
                     Thanks to network operators!
10:20 Break
10:30 Program Managers Report (RB)
       update on GEOSS, DART buoys, national/international efforts
       GEO: group of earth observing systems started in 2003
       GEOSS: concerned with the societal benefits of data, with 9 major areas (seismo
       in disasters section)
               Worthwhile for seismology community because of open data policy for
               participating countries
       Seismology activity in GEO/GEOSS
               2004 – FDSN joined because of links with observational science
               2005 – seismology recognized as important piece after Sumatra, most
               network operators join, recognize FDSN as lead group, define seismology
               tasks in GEOSS
               2006- formal international organization
                 DI-06-02: formal task for seismology (RB point of contact)
                 Additional science partners involved besides FDSN, also working
                 with other groups to get seismology voice/perspective heard,
                 particularly in areas of data sharing, etc
        2007 – added ocean observing systems, GPS into seismology tasks
                 defined as in situ observing system
                 Tokyo symposium – consensus recommendations about
                 importance of sustaining networks, Japan highlights their efforts in
                 West. Pacific
                 Formal seismo task: Coordinate lots of activities (broader than
                 FDSN) including need for new sensors, ocean observations
USGEO – US participation in GEOSS, moved from NOAA to White House
        What does White House need?
                 Space policy
                 Earth Observation Policy (include GSN/ANSS to provide in situ
                 obs.)
                 Seismology and GSN/DMS recognized as important in effort –
                 ―publicity‖ for seismology because seismology observing efforts
                 given as an example in USGEO presentation
        Allows for agency collaborations, new resource possibilities
?BL – what was impetus for White House request for info?
        DG – moving towards actually doing something in GEO rather than
        framework-type talk. Satellite groups have organized plan (ag. from
        space), in situ obs. groups need implementation strategy. GEOSS at
        critical point of moving past vision statements toward getting things done.
        DM – update – Canadians taking leadership role in moving GEOSS
        forward
        Actions in GEOSS in next few weeks – collect accomplishment and goal
        statements
        DG – charge to group: make sure that IRIS/GSN includes accomplishment
        and goal statements for delivering to GEOSS (RB contact)
DM – growing perception as this gets momentum, more participating countries,
that Earth obs. Can be taken care of by GEO. So if not at table early, left out.
Make sure that seismology has place at the table for requirements of observations.

BL – back to what does White House want?
DG – White House has 3 initiatives – oceans (last year), land, air, water
               Land yet to be fully defined, key part for seismo.
RB – has accomplishment statement to send to GEO, needs to go through NSF,
USGS?
       Highlight achievements or systems that have added value, need
       declaration of what we will do next
JR and MI: Questions about regional participation – is USGEO only US based,
Japan taking part of globe, so how does it work in America?
       Need to figure out regional strategy, what are other regional in situ
       observations that would be important to highlight?
       DG – also stress GSN as a model of best practice to USGEO
Action Item: relavent program managers put together statement for land based
observations (using IRIS/USGS/NOAA to fill land initiative) for national network
before satellite community steps into that role

Need representative on task force by March 2

       Cable reuse – 2003
              Hawaii-4 re-used by U. HI
       Earthquake and Tsunami Response
              Sumatra – wake up call to community, great land coverage, little in oceans
              Local problem examining 2006 Java event
                      COCO station used, warning issued w/in 18 min, tsunami hit coast
                      later, but don’t have coverage to get fault finiteness rapidly
                      (important for some cases)
              Need for ocean coverage – upcoming meetings to develop goals for ocean
              observatories
              BL – USGS coverage goal to locate every event M > 4.5, but recent M 6.8
              earthquake in S. hemisphere oceanic transform did not automatically
              associate because of poor coverage
       Sensor issues
              GSN typically buys off-shelf technology, not develop/build sensors
              No replacement STS1, problems with KS54000, now what?
              Need to continue alerting community to these issues
       What do we need for this?
              $$
              Geotech got $ to improve 54000, but not a lot of new development
              Community effort for instrument development (compare w/ astronomy)
              Need both equipment and people to work on this, because problem faces
              many groups (ex. tsunami monitoring impacted in all STS-1s go down)
              ? – how to get interagency funding for building these programs? Can
              there be a joining of DoD and NSF $? Need direction by SC

       Polar Regions
              From GSN perspective, focus on coverage
              Way to move forward – recording glacial earthquakes (link to climate)
              Possible role of GSN – take lead on monitoring regional Greenland
              network, complements satellite obs., climate research
              How? Proposals to OPP, international collaboration (Germans, for ex)
              Different direction for GSN – looking above the Earth
              JP – would need to monitor Greenland for long time, not a PASSCAL
              exp., also important connections with questions in the IPCC report about
              speed of sea level rise
              JR – gets to question of core service – seems more innovative than ―core‖,
              may need to get outside funding
Discussion:
JP – 5 year proposal requested ramp up of funding for on-ice stations with global
coverage goal in mind, but don’t have funding for this in practice

RB – why are there GSN stations in advanced nations? China does O&M for their
stations mostly. Japan – F-Net. GSN had MAJO, ERM in before F-Net, but could we
have Japan define 2 affiliates and do O&M?

Consideration for possible changes:
      Initially had specific design goals in mind
      Moving to affiliates likely wouldn’t save much $, more perception
      Continuity issues, imp. for long term science problems
      GSN is biggest player in FDSN, maybe too big?
      All should be considered for role in next 5 year plan

MI – STS-1 problem for other countries?
RB – French has MARS program, heard good things, but need indep. testing
        Japan – not sure why they aren’t doing it
        Russia/China – maybe a role in future
        But no one putting in significant $$
BL – what about AFTAC?
BV – little research $$ to do this, but keep trying to get DoD funding
JB – out to 100 s, lots of options
        Need to get period band past 100s, but industry not interested. Agencies need
        scientists to tell them that this band is needed.
JP – people are trying to get this info into documents
JB – need to get this into operational efforts
RB – Australia very interested in STS-1 now after Sumatra, tsunami monitoring efforts.
Big events need the long period end, so Sumatra was a very important event to highlight
this need. Can USGS/NOAA write this as a need?
JB – does NOAA have requirement for lp data?
DG – not sure
DM – NOAA gets GSN data now, so its ok. But 10 years down the line, if not available,
may be a problem
DG – need technical/risk assessment of status of STS-1s
JB – again stress who are consumers for the ultra-long period data? Otherwise, would
STS-2 network suffice?
RB – agencies need to think about what happens when STS-1s/KS54000 go away – what
can you do for earthquake analysis (spec. big events) without this data? Need to raise
awareness within agencies that have missions to use data, provide warnings/response.
DM – would STS-2 and GPS network be enough? Likely not
DG – possible action item: document the requirement for ultra-long period data, make
assessment of impact with missing STS-1s?
JP – again, back to depending on core GSN activities….

12:15 lunch
12:30 NGS update (JB & LG)
       NGS DAS: conscious of impact on datacenter, so not reinventing procedures
       NGS Design issues: most items are off the shelf in effort to move from
       customization
               2 items are: sensor interface box that provides power to devices
                            power distribution box, customized for each site, need
                            to build prototype and decide if this one is most useful
       LG – great collaboration with IDA
       Software developments: get data from Q330, repack it, telemeter
       Software status: working on integrating software and station processors (new for
       ASL)
               Meetings later in the week dealing with Q330 command and control
       ? JP – status of prototypes
               Q330HR ordered May/June 06
               Production problems, so Quanterra did redesign of board to improve
               production (no change in how it will work though)
               Quanterrra loaded test systems so integration can continue (test systems
               not to be deployed because of noise problems)
               ASL has 1st 4 systems (of old design) – unpacked but not tested
               Projection for rest – fully new manufacturing by June, all systems by end
               of summer
               ASL and IDA ok with current estimate of production times

1:05 pm USGS Plans (BL)
       Accomplishments:
               NEIC upgrades with supplemental funding in 05 (tsunami related)
                 -software upgrades/redesign (old system still running in parallel w/ new)
               20 min. notification time (improved over ~1 hour previous) with new 24/7
               operations
               pot of $ for research on finite fault modeling, PAGER system
               bigquake replaced by customizable system (ENS)
               set internal performance standards (minimum) (see handout) related to
               magnitude cutoffs, parameter uncertainty, alert timing
                       core GSN would need to meet these standards
       Responsibilities
               USGS director required to warn for geologic hazards
               W/in earthquake budget, over ½ goes for monitoring
               Funding authorized by NEHRP
               Monitoring for CTBT,TTBT also
       Tracking/Metrics
               Include data availability, customers (related to shakemaps)
       International Collaboration
               Long term projects – IOTWS, seismic hazards in Afganistan, nuke treaty,
               GEOSS
       Ideal – plans for global seismology (no resource limits)
               95% GSN availability, better integration with partners (international),
               offshore seismic instruments to improve coverage
       Realistic – all of above, but no oceans. Focus on operational performance
       Plug for research on improving magnitude estimates for big events shortly after
       occurrence (typically +/- 0.5 off at early stage, better for M6 than M8)
               RB – possible link to STS-1 needs, using longer periods for mag estimate
       ? MI – how to evaluate metrics, particularly in capturing all small events?
       BL – look at systematic problems with b-value, also CTBTO locates to smaller
       mags

ASL Proposal (LG)
      Update:
             Caribbean network fully spared (still waiting for equipment) and plan for
             local depots
             ASL facility upgrade – low temp chamber, shake table
      07-08 Budget overview (in order of priority)
             (correct request – incorrect number in proposal, reduce by 132k)
             85k – finish TARA, MACI, SLBS, KANT installations
                     SLBS is 1st Q330 deployment
                     KANT – autonomous station deployment, issues w/ access
             641k – Q330 systems and deployment at SLBS, KANT, US replacements
                     ~46k/station, request 24 total
                     ? JP - testing for new system to KANT? LG – currently testing
                     now, won’t go this summer if not confident in system
                              timing – other options are freighter service, US CG
                              BD – check UNOLS scheduling
             210k – restore WAKE (assume autonomous status)
                     no rush to get in this FY, but maybe window for access
                     possible optional 43k spares
             155k – additional sensors used when replacing Q330s
                     funds purchase Trillium240s as workaround for STS2 delays
                     RB – why Trillium vs CMG 3T? (3T accepted GSN alt. sensor)
                     LG – performance of 3Ts is poor
                     AL – 40% acceptance rate from factory, when deployed, about 6
                     months to failure, good lifespan is ~12 mo before replacement
                     KA – failure out of box seen at Passcal and TA also
                     FN – similar failure with personal instruments
                     KA – Trilliums seem to work well in lab, ? about long term
                     BV – enough spares to deal with borehole issues in next 5 yrs?
                      --- no
                     BV – AFTAC needs ~5 spares, min order at Geotech is 10, USGS
                     can’t afford 5 more.
                     Have had problems with early death of 54000s (powerboard)
             25k – 54000 repairs
             10k – training and calibration equipment
              ? JP – another test before deploying WAKE? Let KANT be test before
              WAKE deployment
2:30 break
2:45 IDA GSN Proposal (PD)
       2.4M total, 2.1M core O&M, includes personnel (8.3 FTE + new field person),
       telemetry, station operation costs, shipping, travel, spares/parts
       Telemetry – 3 stations left with no telemetry
               RAYN, MSVF (Fiji political problems), ABKT (new president, may help)
       Stations down – going soon to fix (other than NIL)
       Other O&M: several minor fixes, PALK – replace 3T, finish deployment of
       ABPO, WAHI
       Maintenance issue: DAS with failed boards, fix with replaced Reftek boards,
       prototype tested, operates same as previous
       NGS development –
               8 DASs on order for 4 sensors
               propose to change out PFO, TAU, ESK, FFC, EFI * need for new field
               tech
       Extras – 255k for 5 NGS systems (10 Q330HR + ancillary equip)
               Could be deferred, 8 systems already bought w/ other funds, can order 5
               more with money from this year (but couldn’t deploy right away)
               - ~73k spare sensors
                 deferring is a problem because of long leadtime, also have 8 GS-13s that
               are not compatible and will need to be replaced at some point
               10k – spectrum analyzer (don’t need right now, but need comes quickly)
               travel to Tajikistan – could be cut, but nearby GSN stations could be at
               risk
       Core items for O&M, refurbishing on network
       JB – spare sensors impact core because of long leadtime for sensors
       JP/LG – possible Trillium solution to lead-time issues?
       FN – core budget last year 2.4M (more last year than this)

3:30 pm – smaller proposals (KA)
       For continuing work on small subawards
       - 20k – UCB work with Q330 and low power processors, put metadata into
       smaller packets
       - 20k – CalTech processing waveforms
       ? to LG – ASL coordination efforts more with UCB
       ? JP – if project would disappear, what would happen? If ops groups aren’t using
       it, GSN shouldn’t fund it
       ? MI – what improvements come to GSN from these?
       LG – freeOrb make data more complete in realtime
       KA – also work with low power processes, need for autonomous sites
       ? SB – details for need on waveform processing
       LG – maybe not needed for autonomous stations if no one is looking at data
       JB – applicability for porting to GSN vs their regional networks
       RB – typically give UCB and Caltech latitude to provide creative efforts for
       developments that can be incorporated into GSN. Maybe not most integrated this
       year, but over time have seen benefits
       ? MI – any alternatives
       LG – work at ASL to do this work
       JP – only 20k, if ASL has to pay for work, what is cost
       - 15k Columbia – support for GPS in Russia
       ? JP – how does this impact GSN goals
       RB/KA – geophysical networks, been effective so far

3:45 pm break
4:00 pm Budget Discussion
       KA & RB go through #’s , changes between years, possible resolution to get to
       3.4M
       JP – role to make recommendation to BoD, could make drastic changes
       BL – core vs non-core discussion needed
       JP – finish budget review, then discuss priorities and rearrangement
       Comparison w/ last year
               ASL and IDA up (no carryover this year)
               Management a bit less
               Operations ~ flat
       Last year target was ~3.2M + some held by IRIS for competition
       This year 3.4M and no competition (also includes G&A)
       Need to find 800k to cut
       BL – request subawardees come back with priorities for cuts
       Possible adjustments: (KA & RB)
               WAKE restore – remove spares
               No travel Tadjikistan
               Remove Q330 deployments (only replace opportunistically)
               IDA field tech
               NGS (ASL cut 7 of 12, IDA cut 3 of 5), effectively slow down roll out
       JB/PD – defer all IDA NGS, don’t have field personnel now to do this without
       new person, reinstate field tech
       ?JP – IDA FAB – change in overhead charges
       JB/PD – can’t go back to previous usage for existing stations
       ? DM – effect on 08/09 budget, problem for sustainability if budgets stay flat
       BD – other options, like MRI, for other resources for this
       JP – maybe as a package to GEOSS, flat funding not acceptable, will need to find
       ways to package for other funds
       JP – put out some NGS to show that they work, make case for upgrading whole
       network
       ? BL – any possibility of more than 3.4M
       RB – not impossible, but not sure
       ? BL – take WAKE out, make top priority for additional funds, good package
       JP – BoD responsive to idea that GSN need more significant upgrades than
       piecemeal efforts, wants to see aggressive ways to get funding from outside
       sources

Discussion – what if core is more than 3.4M?
       Start communication with NSF to tell them that w/out full funding, network can
       degrade

5:00 pm - end of Day 1


February 27, 2007

8:30 am Exec. Session

10:00 am – full group
AFTAC briefing – BV
       Status of aff. Stations – S. Africa (replaced comm. module)& Botswana(replace
       comm. module), Ivory Coast – same, Argentina (power probs, upgrade in sept.07,
       comms), Paraguay (comms probs), Bolivia (comm. upgrade), antarctica (comm..
       upgrade)

       54000 reliability: 2 problems (shipping damage, age of components)
              age- problem with power boards after 8-10 yrs, related to power flucts,
              have short-term fix

       proposal for joint 54000 buy—aftac needs 5 more, geotech wants orders of at
       least 10 (666k + shipping cases 20k) --- $70k each. Aftac will buy anyway if
       GSN can’t, also will be spare circuit boards 11k each

       KA – what is cost for buying 5 only? Don’t know, but does increase per
       instrument
       RB – do circuit boards also need volume buy? Don’t know if there is a price
       break
       JP – how did find tech. fix? BV - Lab engineers, took several months. Does
       depend on smoothness in power supply. Most often problem when power is
       removed.

10:20 NOAA briefing (DG delayed)
ANSS backbone (AL)
       +20% in size due to Earthscope
       Oct – green operating, red – problems (map)
       Today – 1 station down, wating for CCM
       Some short term outages, but generally good
              Signal problems with WA station, but fixing comms now
              2 white dots – need final comms installation
       2 sites in AK – operating well
       O&M – now moved field to ASL oversight
       07 strategy – now on seisnet watch (more than 97%), new monitoring folks
       (delegate to field staff), expanding local resources & station documentation, types
       of comms, web page efforts continuing
       Data availability:
                #’s from DMC are diff. from uptime at station -- why?
                From golden --- confusion in transition process at NEIC
                Holdings are confusing, even to this group, so need to work out these
                issues
                Also look at the latencies
       ? JD – backbone Q330, gsn –Q680s. backbone more reliable?
       AL – not really so, particularly now at early stages. When Q330 operating to full
       capability, probably the case.

10:30 – ORION update (BD)
       proposed 08 budget: was supposed to start in fy07, but not sure what will happen
       to it this year, start in 07 or 08? Project total 330M over 6 years (infra costs),
       O&M 50M/yr
       peak years 09/11
       planning status: CDR Aug06, revision of conceptal designs to fit for budget costs,
       scope has decrease
       awarding contracts for construction and OM this year, other activities include
       MARS (in Monterey), NEPTUNE cable next year

       6sites remaining for global scale observ., selection driven by climate/ocean
       circulation topics, not from solid earth communities, but some buoy sites may be
       interest for borehole seismo
       - can telemeter data back from seafloor in the buoys, tested previously for 1 year

       regional element – Neptune
       maybe interest in the blanco transform section and cascadia sub. Site

       PacNW endurance array and NE array – more coastal focus, climate driven
       interests

       timeline – prelim. Design review in Dec./early 2008
       orionprogram.org for more info.

       ? RB will seismometer be at the dots? Yes, that is plan, except maybe near
       Greenland site
       Is Blanco still in there? Yes, but it could change depending on cost issues, maybe
       remove some of infra. at Blanco node
       Cost estimates getting better, NSF guidance on OM costs now given
       ? RB What can GSN do? Express interest in any of those sites would help, have
       technology and funding when those buoy sites go in
       Look at tech. details tomorrow

11:00 break

11:10 am NOAA update/Tsunami warning system (DG)
       strategies: GSN feed into GEOSS workplan, driven by benefits (disasters)
                systems of systems is breaking down – national observing priorities are
                taking over due to funding, etc.
                IOC – regional working groups for ocean basins, includes seismic
                        Look at stations, see which were used for operation vs science
                ISDR – couple with banks to describe economic case for disaster
                strategies
       Hazard assessment: no national assessment for tsunami and other hazards
       previously?
                New documents on national hazards
       Obs. – seismic, sealevel, dart
                CTBTO data stream – now included into NOAA
                Sealevel data – not getting data fast enough, now can get minute by
                minute basis
       Dart stations: only 3 operating for Sumatra, now have 25 stations (1 in IO), total
       of 39 in mid-2008
                Not including seismic right now, germans are researching possibilities
       Seismic network upgrade: Alaska- digital improvements
                                Pacific – 8-9 stations added/tobeadded
                                USGS sites in Caribbean
       Seismic data requirement: 80% data availability in 12 well-dist. Stations
       In process of upgrading infra to NOAA-net
       Remaining station deployments (ship issue) – will be in Central America soon,
       later in 07/08, atlantic and SW pacific
       Other arrays – climate arrays (located in KANT region), ship goes there every
       year to service TAO array – who to talk to? National Data Buoy Center

       Other countries coming to table for training/ provide shiptime (Korea, Mexico,
       etc)

       Deep ocean seismics – adding seismic capabilitiy: issue with bandwidth, batteries,
       research continuing to deal with these issues.
       Warnings/forecasts: integrate data, warning/alerts, changing to making forecasts
       Challenges:
              Sustainability issues
                      Like affliates – how to assure funds? Trust funds, adopt a buoy
       funds
                      Have met w/ insurance companies – novel ways to finance OM
                      Microloans/microinsurance for appropriate stations for hazards
                      Law passed – tsunami warning and education act 2006 – mandates
                             existence of observing system, detection, data management,
                             partnerships
                      ? if mandated to have this observing system, need uptime
                      requirement, and are a customer of GSN, so important to SC to use
                      that number

                      ? BL – requirment of 12 stations w/in 900 km – where are gaps?
                               DG – still need to figure out the core/critical stations for
                      this
                      ? JP – GSN used as a monitoring tool by US agencies, not typical
                      for NSF funding issues. If these numbers are written into
                      regulations, important
                      DG – law also states need for state partners, research component
                      ?RB – 12 stations – only land, or would ocean sensors help?
                      - Need to layout plan where we know there is a risk, then where
                      station need to be
                      ? RB – no operational mission in NSF funding. How can NOAA
                      help with NSF?
                      - hard to bring NSF to table difficult, get folks from
                           engineering/ear section, commerce dept., into research plan to
                           stress there is an operational component, but need to get right
                           partners
                      RB – NSF previous interest/funding in CTBT, let IRIS take lead,
                      keep informed, IRIS not same role right now in tsunamis

                      Need to document comments related to ―what would happen if
                      GSN disappeared‖

                      ? BL – NOAA to get out of seismic network management? Where
                      is that?
                      - beat this back, stress need for local requirements and need for
                           seismic monitoring for NOAA.
11:45 CTBTO reps for update
       Haslinger, Brely, Estabrook:
       Auxillary seismic stations, many are GSN stations

       Overview of new structure (PTS - Provisional Technical Secretariat)
              Previous – separate sections for IMS and communications
              New structure: operations center w/in network data systems, also have
              monitoring facilities and installation/certification Group
       Seismic monitoring (Estabrook)
              IMS network 50 primary and 120 auxilliary seismic, 50 infrasound, 80
              radionuclide, 11 hydroacoutsic
              22 ASL/11 IDA stations in aux. statons
                     IDC, 5 min. requirements, 98% uptime goal
                     JP – related to our core services, need this constraint
Station map-
        Focus on completed/transmitting, definition varies, include upgrades
        Some of the certified stations (like Iran) have been unplugged…
        Turkmenistan site – 2008 start installation
        IDA/ASL stations – put on map, but status of some needs to be cleared
        ?JP - could some stations go to GSN affiliate and share data? Need to get
        it cleared by Russian military, fairly restrictive
Infrasound statons – easy ones done, more difficult left
Hydroacoustic stations – most done,
Have an infrasound site in wake island, may be moved to marshall islandsbecause
island wiped out, but moving from 1 country to another is big issue
Radionuclide network – putting effort into Russian fed.

Brely – structure previously technology driven
       Restructuring by level – 1: operations, 2: maintence/logistics group, 3: not
       formalized (engineering group, redesign)
       Few bodies in groups, need to rely on station operators, vendors, other
       folks (GSN, AFTAC, etc)
       Configuration management – change something in station that will change
       dataflow --- need to know
               Challenge – operational manual not complete w/ configuration
       items for auxiliary stations
Haslinger – maintenance issues
       Issues that affect GSN/CTBTO
               DAS upgrade
                       Work with IDA/ASL for tech. solutions/details with
                       network communications, should not be big problem
                       ? certification issue – Q330 no problem
               Migration to new comms – next GCI (global comm.. infra)
                       PSI systems Inc taking contract for GCI (2008-2018)
                       iDirect modems
                       migration mid 2007
                       GSN uses PTS data link at no add. Cost, will likely work as
                       before, but need more discussion about bandwidth planning
                                ? Kent – new systems change power budget? No,
                       should use less (60-70 W compared to 100 W now)
                                ? RB – any repointing of dishes? Some will need to
                       be, minor. Few will be major, done by contractor.
               Config. Management
                       IMS has no impact on GSN swapping of equip, but would
                       want min. standard of info on equipment to be used by
                       Config Man.
               Station issues:
                       GNI, RAO, PMSA a few, work with ASL/IDA directly
               Need to continue communication – both GSN and CTBTO budgets
               cut, so need to work together to keep stations alive
                    ? RB – working with different people w/ GCI issues? Yes with the
                    restructuring
Break & Executive Session

1:50 pm – STS-1 sensor issues
JB – broadband optical sensor development
       Noise by sensor: STS1 most quiet at long periods (beyond 100 s), others not so
       good
       Shorter periods, all sensors are about the same
       Mechanical design of STS1
       Compare STS2 and optical seismo. – see same signal bandpassed 1-5 Hz
       (optical measures displacement, so need to convert to look like STS2 record)
       also good comparison with STS1 record, small differences
       spectrum, don’t match long period response exactly, do fine at short period
       noise study – optical sensor matches the sts1 result to a few 100 s
       normal modes study – optical amplifies mode peaks
               see 0S2 and those above it
       causes of long period noise – leak in bell jar 1 possible cause
       ?JP – issue with no-linearity of spring, -- see this w/ motions of few mm
       ? – issues with free period, interfere w/ eq. signals – need to run along side STS to
       compare
       ? RB – not better than STS1 – no, can match at certain periods
       ? costs of building and production --- need to see if the idea will work, more
       testing, in principal less than 54000

KA – Metrozet progress
      Possible noise source in feedback electronics, not in sensor itself
      Coll. w/ UCB, reburish of STS1 seismo feedback electronic system primarily
      Add features to allow for onsite calibration, SOH monitoring
      System running at UCB, data suggests doesn’t add much extra noise, maybe less
      Test of production-level boxes w/ ref. sensors at the network operators
      Concerns about new system compatibility w/ currently deployed sensors –
      working on this w/ operational test w/ field operators
      So far just worked on electronics, not mechanical issues at this point
      Plan to work at ASL during March

RB – development encouraging w/ JB developing something comparable to STS1
       Possible good candidate in need of push for development, accelerate the process?
JB – contact Mark as lead person about which direction to procede, possibly need an
engineer? Meeting tomorrow w/ principals

RESOLUTION: we encourage discussion w/ UCSD group for vault sensor as
possible alternative for STS-1

? What is the market for this item? -- per unit costs can be expensive
? borehole vs surface packages? Might be more useful to community
100 STS1 in GSN currently, ? expected lifetime for sensors (electronics may die/fade
sooner, if not now)
AFTAC interested in borehole instruments, also GSN
Economic case to be made…
Need to keep NSF attention on issue (specified in coop agreement) – how to do is a
question (do now, or do later)
NSF might fund workshop for this issue – one suggestion put JBs idea on table and bring
folks to ask about building it
? where might extra funding come from ?

2:40 Isolated STS2 update (Hutt)
comparison of STS1 & STS2 in several configs
        elevated noise at long periods at warpless base (may be digitizer problem)
        getting better results with small Styrofoam box than the warpless base - miniums
        ? environmental issues though may be helped by the granite base method, -- noise
        study may not reflect same sort of field conditions (experiments done at ASL)
        ? TARA install – will have 2 separate installations, good side-by-side test
        ? these at least as good as sand installation
        RB ? are converging on a favored design on STS2 installation such that STS1 at
        noisy stations could be replaced with isolated STS2? – recommendation: if no
        corrosive environment, use styrofoam box or sand; if corrisive environment, use
        warpless or german method. But not flat response out to 360 s for STS2, so this
        could be issue with some analysis

? did study several years ago, only 2 spots could STS1 be replaced by STS2? What is
standard that is expected by removal and replace?
List of poor performance of instruments. As possible ones for replacement – in pink.
        RB?-network operators have better installation for STS2, SC request that STS1
        back where possible

Action item: By fall meeting: ASL/IDA review standard isolated STS2 deployment
method to get baseline on making decisions on STS1, propose list of STS1 returns

3:05 Cold Guralp (CMG-3T/LT) low temp version (Hutt)
       use in Antarctica, remote sites with low power requirements (not using lots of
       power for heat)
       1st comparison at ANMO – good at short period, intermediate performance at long
       periods
       at low temp testing – E module wouldn’t unlock at low temp, software problem
       fixed, fully operational, installed Feb 07
       H1 component noisy – something died
       Has chance of working, but not working that well right now
       ? spiking observations ? see them, but not figure out why

3:20 Budget
Possible adjustments from last time and strawman adjustments from program managers –
from last time
Request network managers provide adjustments:
       IDA: retain field person, cut rest of the NGS systems
       ALS: changes wait on WAKE (defer), don’t want cut in Q330s and NGS, cut
       some Trillium purchases

       ?JP - Stipend payouts through IRIS vs UCSD –
               IDA suggests no, dilute UCSD contact with station operators, 4-5 stipends
               need to be adjusted every year, lead to difficulties (hard to quantify) over
               time, see ? from IRIS about why/when, IDA will have to work to write
               justifications for them, station operators may still contact IDA about
               payment issues, personal contacts very important, previous attempt of this
               did not work (Uganda example)
               Field assistant key, need to build up experience so they can go out on their
               own, long term need (10 stations/tech in proposal)
               ? take on new permanent salary and cut NGS this year, how did this
               impact next year budget issues (if flat). – none next year, would hit in
               further out years
               based on level funding, problem because long term plan requires NGS,
               and can’t afford now
               possibly use sweep-up funds to buy das, can’t use late funding for
               personnel

               ASL - ? continue Q330 deployment, what is the offset? Full WAKE
               deferment would do most of it (use for priority if additional funding
               becomes available)
               reduce field deployments from 9 to 6, cut to buy 3 Trilliums instead of 6,
               cut NGS by 180k (would leave 4 more Q330 and 8 ancillary) funds for 20
               sites, deploy 15
               ? request for IDA personnel – needed because 1 person left?
Accept IDA proposed changes – motion by JR, seconded,
               BL – wants to see outyear impact at some point
                        See impact in 1.5-2 years, cut deployment rate from 5 to 3 per year
                        (do all replacements in 10 yrs vs 6 yrs), hope that an alternative
                        will appear
               MI – requested field person – does that assume 5 replacements/yr? Still
               have enough work to keep busy at 3 per year, new problems will show up
               (problems coming up faster now than they can handle them). Phase delay
               with new systems will put even further behind.
               MI – check numbers with that cut – will make the budget cut? Under 20k
               difference, personnel is for 12 months, likely will not be able to hire
               someone by July 1 for full year, so more like 100k.
Call question – shift NGS $ to extra field person – pass unanimously

ASL changes –
delay WAKE: moved and 2nded
        DM? punting WAKE until at least 08, but can flag it to make a case for priority
        funding if anything shows up (this has to be separate motion)
        Remove WAKE – passed
Change purchase to 3 from 6 trilliums, reinstate 6 of 9 field deployments, NGS acquistion
(12 to 4 Q330s, 12 to 8 ancillary equip) gives equip for 20 NGS systems, deploy 15 of
these, moved and seconded
        Discussion, all in favor – passes with 1 abstain (BL – USGS rep)

Other Budget Issues:
If more funds available, prioritize items:
       ASL next item: WAKE
       IDA next item: NGS systems
       BV – spare 54000
       JB – have some sitting on shelf at IDA, more than ASL, but still have some
       KA – BoD did not want to purchase any more 54000 based on last year
       JP – make BoD aware of offer w/ 54000s

Discussion:
RB – may still need to prioritize either if get more or get less
JP – instruments likely only cut
BL – minor subawards possible for cut?
MI – focus on usefulness of Caltech one, LG - hard to tell what would be done, not sure
how strongly coupled the UCB and Caltech ones are. UCB is more long-term value than
Caltech (Lind past experience w/ UCB).
BL –Caltech is a Trillum
JP – minor subawards – core vs. non-core?
BD – not core. JD – UCB has impact on Q330 integration, UCB is core (only one)
Motion that Caltech and Columbia proposals not core, 2nded
MI – cut Caltech proposal and get a Trillum?
RB - University subaward to Caltech not closely coupled to GSN activities – not core

RB – GPS still supported, not core? Need to support
BL – GPS could still be offered up if don’t get 3.4, as could instrument procurement
RB – IDA # for CMG-3T was off, need to check that detail
KA – correct this from their original budget, bottom line will go up by ~20 k

4:35 pm Core Activities of GSN
Present from the executive session discussion
 120 stations should be GSN, not affiliates
  90% of all data from core (120 station) network gets there (uptime)
                - JB costs for this will be large,
                - Shane – maybe 90% is more than GSN can afford right now.
                    Operators need to advise SC what those levels would cost. Numbers
                    based on USGS . Mean that we cannot meet core standards today. Set
                    per. Goals based on need, not $$.
                - Need to name stations in 120? Choose stations based on need, not
                best-performing ones necessarily
BV/JP – need to make metrics more precise, such as
        Define latency and response to other US govt. agencies
        Role of DMS to get data delivery
RB – GSN data goes to DCCs then goes to PTWC and others -- those parts are not w/in
the GSN.
DM – modify 2nd sentence to specify getting data only to DCC
JB – 3rd sentence – what does IMS requirement mean for GSN core?
JB - Question about GPS – propose removing
SI – issue with channel uptimes (90% vs 75 %) – work on wording of this
RB – 4th bullet
BL – reworking of text removing details about # of stations and uptime
DM – reason for flagging 98% uptime, others specify hardware issues
DG – phrase goals that can’t meet now as targets, can frame for future investments
JB – goal of 98% for subset is completely new – not a GSN goal
Shane – if IMS not asked, then shouldn’t be a goal
JP – need stronger metric based, give this to the BoD
BL – covers mission of GSN
Modify Tasks:
? IRIS University Network? Helped pay for PAS, help UCB, but don’t pay for O&M,
LCO (Chile) STS1 owned by Carneige, responsible to keep funded through GSN funding
are GSN stations, yes, most subsumed by USGS
? technology advance in refurbishment? Should be state of the art network (as in the
proposal) and continue sustain as state of the art
- JP modified tasks in PPT file to reflect all of these changes

5:25 – end!
JP – thanks for coming and participation
More work to do – JP and program managers to turn statements into costs, statements to
be sent to SC before going to BoD
Motion to adjourn 5:30 pm

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:9/21/2011
language:English
pages:22