A timeline of ISR events

1
A timeline of ISR events
1955
Bill Gordon conceives of incoherent scatter
Millstone built by MIT Lincoln Lab
1960
Jicamarca built by NBS
Arecibo built by DARPA
1965
NSF takes over Arecibo from DoD
1970
Chatanika Radar built by DNA
NSF support of Millstone Hill Radar begins
1975
NSF takes over Chatanika from DNA
NSF takes over Jicamarca from NOAA
EISCAT UHF radar built
1980
Chatanika Radar moved to Greenland
EISCAT VHF radar Built
1985
1990
1995
EISCAT Svalbard Radar built
2000
NSF funds the construction of AMISR
2005
AMISR begins operating at Poker Flat Alaska
2010
2
The NSF Incoherent Scatter Radar Chain-2006
NSF-supported ISRs--2008
AMISR- Resolute Bay (RISR)
Sondrestrom (SRF)
Sondrestrom (SRF)
RISR 2008
PFISR 2007
SRF 1982
MH 1962
AO 1962
AMISR-Poker Flat (PFISR)
Millstone Hill (MH)
Millstone Hill (MH)
Jicamarca (JRO)
JRO 1963
Jicamarca (JRO)
Arecibo (AO)
Arecibo (AO)
3
ISR Starts and Stops

• France St. Santin, (multi-static) 1963-1987
• UK Malvern, (multi-static) 1968-1975
• MISCAT, Aberystwyth, UK, 1972 (multi-static--first
  ISR to measure three-dimensional drift
  velocities)

4
The Upper Atmosphere Observatory(1969-1975)

• Physics of the Earth in Space The role of
  Ground-Based Research, NAS, 1969
• Upper Atmosphere Observatory Criteria and
  Capabilities, NAS, 1971
• Upper Atmosphere Observatory Preliminary
  Engineering Study, U. of Illinois, 1971
• Upper Atmosphere Observatory Management, Upper
  Atmosphere Research Corporation, 1971
• Upper Atmosphere Observatory Main Site
  Selection Studies, Upper Atmosphere Research
  Corporation, 1974
• Upper Atmosphere Observatory Radar Design
  Studies, MIT, 1975

5
The Upper Atmosphere Observatory
6
Relocation of ISR from Chatanika to Sondrestrom
The beginning of AMISR
The Next Step in Upper Atmospheric Science
7
The Plight of the Polar Cap Observatory

• 1989 workshop to develop technical requirements
  for an ISR in the Polar Cap
• Three design studies funded by NSF
• Funding provide for the Early Polar Cap
  Observatory
• Polar Cap Observatory proposal submitted by SRI
• Proposal reviewed with excellent ratings and
  strong recommendation for funding
• PCO project put forward for funding under NSF
  Major Research Equipment program
• Removed from NSF budget by Congress in August 1997

8
Plight (continued)

• A second workshop convened in 1998 to discuss the
  scientific benefits of a relocatable atmospheric
  observatory (RAO)
• RAO proposal submitted in 2001 to build
  solid-state phased array radars at Poker Flat,
  Alaska, and Resolute Bay, Canada.
• 44M proposal funded by Division of Atmospheric
  Sciences renamed Advanced Modular Incoherent
  Scatter Radar (AMISR)

9
The Arecibo Story(or why bad things happen to
good radars)

• The NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences planned
  to build new, large, expensive observatories
• Their budget projections indicated that they
  would not be able to afford the operational costs
  of the new observatories
• They convened a Senior Review to get advice on
  where they could save money

10
What went wrong

• The Senior Review was asked to evaluate existing
  observatories based on their potential
  contributions to radio astronomy alone
• The Senior Review was given a very narrow charge
  without the flexibility to explore other
  solutions to the funding problems
• The Senior Review was asked to make budget
  decisions that should be the responsibility of
  NSF the committee was selected on the basis of
  scientific expertise, not budgetary experience.

11
How it should have been done

• NSF AST should have been more open to a variety
  of solutions to the budgetary problems
• The Senior Review should have been asked to
  evaluate all aspects of the observatoriesnot
  just radio astronomy
• NSF should have used the Senior Review
  recommendations along with other programmatic
  issues to make the ultimate funding decisions
• The NSF decisions should have been based on
  internal discussions involving all stakeholders
• If any observatory was threatened as a result of
  this process, NSF should have worked
  confidentially with the institution responsible
  for that observatory no public statements about
  closure or funding reductions should have been
  made until all other solutions had been exhausted.

12
What now?

• NSF needs to strengthen its commitment to
  continuing support for Arecibo in whatever way
  possible to avoid closure.
• NSF needs to work in partnership with Cornell to
  find a solution to the funding problem.
• NSF and Cornell have to think outside the box in
  seeking solutions. The observatory may have to
  be reinvented.
• Recompetition remains a possibility, and opens
  the way to new ideas in managing and operating
  Arecibo.

13
What gives ISRs the edge

• Excellent science
• Excellent people
• Continuous development and improvement
• Location
• Co-located instrumentation
• Leveraging
• International cooperation
• We stick together