SDO SWG Meeting 15 February 2006 Monterey, CA USA Attending: Dean Pesnell, Chris St. Cyr, Tom Anderson, Jim Lemen, Jesper Schou, Barbara Thompson, Phil Scherrer, Jake Wolfson, Alexei Pevtsov, Ed DeLuca, Peter Smith, Steve Tomczyk, Tom Woods, Frank Eparvier, Todd Hoeksema, Guillaume Aulanier, Joe Gurman, Bernhard Fleck, Rock Bush, Nick Arge, Karel Schrijver, Rasmus Larsen, Don Woodraska, Eliane Larduinat, Daryl Judge, Judit Pap, Mike Scott, Tom Duvall, Deborah Scherrer, Yang Liu, Alan Title Meeting minutes: 1) SWG Charter 2) SDO Instrument Book 3) Supercomputer Use Proposal 4) E/PO Discussion 5) Metadata 1) Charter of the SWG, and a brief recap from previous meetings by Dr. Pesnell 2) Publication Plans for the SDO Instrument "Book." An editor of the Journal "Solar Physics" was present, and stated that they are willing to host a special issue for SDO, provided that we fill about 180 pages. There is no minimum or maximum page limit per paper. The SDO issue can be bound separately as a reference volume, as well as available on line as individual papers. Dr. Pesnell proposes the following articles: Mission Overview, Spacecraft Overview, 6 instrument papers (1 for the hardware & the other for calibration/characterization/data), and then one for the ground system. 9 chapters in all. People were interested in "state of the science" reviews, but it was clear that the required papers would be too long to join this volume. To appear in late 2008, the articles need to be completed by late 2007. Writing will begin when the instruments are complete. Additionally, we will be arranging a special "Early Results of SDO" paper about 18 months after the Instrument book. 3) Supercomputer Use Proposal: Dr. Pesnell introduced a discussion of a coordinated proposal for SDO supercomputer use. Code 600 (science directorate) at NASA GSFC has asked whether we have projects that need time on NASA supercomputer resources. These cannot be production runs for data analysis, but could use visualizations, model constructions that include data, etc. Joe Gurman cautions us that the supercomputer proposal may cost more in the long run. Another problem is the IT security - foreign scientists may be subjected to extra hassle and restrictions. This is a problem for graduate students in particular. How much time is needed? About 10 million hours is needed When should it start? The NASA Code 600 time allocation committee meets rarely - every 6-9 months. We would like to find someone to sit on the committee for this, but we need to understand whether there's a conflict of interest problem. Therefore, we need to do this with more lead time to get the resources when we need them. 4) E/PO Discussion Dr. Pesnell makes it clear that the science team doesn't have to work with the E/PO leads for E/PO activities, but it's good to get out and make sure that people are aware of what we're doing. E/PO leads have good resources, and they are a good source of advice when it comes to determining what material is appropriate for different audiences and age groups. Science teams are optimally suited for going out and talking about what we're doing. Curriculum development is best left to the E/PO leads and the educators. SDO is working on demonstrations that you can use during these visits. Magnetic fields and spectra are examples of demonstrations that have writeups and equipment. Tom Woods said that U. of Colorado has put together a planetarium show called "Space Storms" that is also available for other people. There is a monthly SDO E/PO update, if you'd like to receive this, email Emilie Drobnes at emilie@ihy.gsfc.nasa.gov Showing up and being excited is your most important contribution to E/PO! Chris St. Cyr reports that the LWS Project has received a retraction of E/PO funds, and HQ is trying to decide what they're going to do. Chris says that there may be fairly radical changes. We should probably hold tight for a while until we see what HQ decides. Update on NASA HQ approach to education: NASA HQ is moving away from "formal education" and is looking to support activities other than curriculum development, etc. They've halved the amount of money for K-12, and doubled the amount for higher education and informal education. This is good for visits to museums, public venues, etc. It's also good for the type of stuff that scientists are best suited for - so scientists are heavily encouraged to support the SDO E/PO leads. 5) Metadata discussion A very healthy discussion on metadata issues, standards, and needs. We agreed that we'd form a small data group to determine these. Additional discussion: Support of solarsoft. If solarsoft is going to be our toolbox, how can SDO help provide support? There is no guarantee of the future support of the solarsoft tree. 6) Working group status: The space weather working group is the most active working group, they've had several meetings. There are some others but we decided that they'll have activities as needed. There are helioseismology working groups that meet, involving SDO scientists but are not SDO-exclusive. 7) Future meetings and conferences. The next SWG meeting will be March 2007, and immediately before a LWS meeting. Some small focused workshops for SDO have been proposed: "The Interaction of Atomic Physics and Solar Physics" "Magnetic field modeling", vector magnetogram inversions Helioseismology ISSI workshop proposals Chapman workshop proposals Participation in existing workshop activities, such as the Boulder space weather summer school, space weather week, CISM workshops There was a mention of a deal with NASA & NCAR to allow NCAR to host workshops, keep those in mind.