Minutes for ANASAC Telecon Thursday February 21, 2013

Participants: Al Wootten Phil Jewell Carol Lonsdale Alberto Bolatto John Carpenter Dick Crutcher Leslie Looney Dan Marrone Karin Oberg Rachel Osten Dick Plambeck James Di Francesco

Online agenda: https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/ALMA/21Feb13Agenda

1. Construction status -- Last North American antenna on its way up to high site right now! -- 2 weeks ago, a lightning strike (at least that is the hypothesis; it is not known for certain) wiped out power to antennas. Dewars are presently being pumped down; 22 dewars cooled down as of today. -- Last front end has been finished -- nutator arrived and installed on antenna for tests -- Operating on 2 turbines -- considerable wet weather during the Altiplanic winter (not as bad as last year); The road to Calama was washed out; enough fuel was on hand while road was cleared -- Cycle 1 starts up on March 6 again; Al will be Astronomer on Duty then

2. Operations

-- On March 1 there will be news item on science portal regarding Cycle 1 results -- Hope to finish Cycle 0 data reduction by Feb 28 -- 4 remaining projects for North America remain to be delivered to the PIs -- cycle0 data that pass QA0 will be delivered; data that passed QA0 but were not used in QA2 products are being delivered.

3. ASAC Items

ASAC face-to-face meeting held last week in Mitaka, Japan. All five NA representatives (John Carpenter, Kelsey Johnson, Douglas Scott, Alberto Bolatto, Dick Plambeck) were in attendance. Here are the highlights.

Charge 1: Evaluate outcomes of Cycle 0 Japan and Chile conferences were a success

Charge 2: Evaluate the Cycle 1 process though the proposal review process and feedback to proposers The user survey confirms many of the anecdotal comments that were expressed at our f2f meeting last September. Most of the community seems satisfied, but there are concerns. The following changes will be made for Cycle 2:

-- Technical reviews will be performed before the panel reviews on the non-triaged proposals -- The constraints on the number of science goals will be removed -- A spectral survey mode will be offered that allows investigators to specify a range of tunings. -- The ASAC recommends that Cycle 2 does not permit duplicate observations from previous cycles. There will need to be a duplication policy.

Charge 3: Comment on the scientific priorities relating to the Cycle 2 capabilities and advise on the scientific priorities for Cycle 3.

-- Most of the discussion was focused on Cycle 3 priorities. Stuartt Corder has given us a number of questions to consider, and the ASAC is discussing them now.

-- Top priority for the ASAC is the longer baselines, but there are subtleties in pushing to 15km baselines at the low frequencies, or going to 10 km baselines at all frequencies.

Dick Plambeck asked when will 15 km baselines be possible? Al said that they should be delivered by construction by the end of the year but need commissioning. The inner 5 km are ready when power is delivered to them and they are commissioned. Long baseline observations must be commissioned; that will take considerable time.

-- Polarization Wide-field continuum polarization Zeeman/spectral line polarimetry Longer baseline polarization band 9 polarization

Dick Crutcher indicated CN polarization is easier due to to different hyperfine lines having different Zeeman splitting coefficients, which makes characterizing instrumental polarization easier. Alberto replied that the ASAC was only asked to consider science, not technical aspects.

-- Total power observations Band 9 spectra line single dish Continuum single dish Nutating single dish vs. fast scanning

Al said that after solar observing meeting in Glasgow in January, they want to do total power continuum observations, but Stuartt indicated that this won't be possible for Cycle 2.

-- Solar observations Sun is entering solar maximum next year. Should the commissioning of solar observations be kept internal, or should the solar community be involved since there is no solar expertise on the JAO staff? The proposal is to do the latter.

Rachel: Proposal makes sense

-- Other comments Dan asked about the priority for subarray implementation. This is limited by software, and is not currently the top priority. The benefits to science and testing are obvious. Dan suggests that the ASAC members push for the implementation of subarrays in their report to the Board.

Charge 4: Large proposals, legacy projects and time series observations across cycle boundaries -- Large proposals are already defined (> 100 hours, time is split based on specified co-Is). Large proposals will not be offered for Cycle 2.

-- The ASAC had considerable debate on whether Legacy proposals should be offered. It was implied that the time for legacy proposals would come of the top and have no proprietary period. However, Legacy proposals were never precisely defined by the ASAC. There was a lot of discussion, but no consensus emerged.

-- Time series observations across cycle boundaries were discussed, but this doesn't seem necessary at this time (and may be allowable within the existing time allocation procedure).

Charge 5: Adequacy of public information on projects -- ASAC again recommended abstracts be published for all accepted projects after the proposal review, and not wait until the end of the proprietary period as is the policy for Cycle 1. -- The ASAC recommends that the metadata for proposals should be sufficient to allow a PI to judge if a proposed observation may be a duplicate observation.

Dick Crutcher expressed concerned that publishing the abstracts before a project is observed will allow other people to scoop the projects in the next proposal if the project is not actually observed. He suggests not releasing the abstracts until the observations are actually made to protect the PIs.

Rachel agrees this could happen, but suggested that this was more of a problem in perception than reality.

John Carpenter mentioned that all successful PI's in Cycle 0 were asked if it was ok to publish their abstracts, and no one objected.

4. ALMA development program -- The one day meeting in Japan last week summarized the current status of the development program in each of the regions. -- Both Europe and NA will have a Call for Studies next spring -- NA will also have a Call for Projects (Europe project line is full until 2017 for band 5) -- The UVa fabrication group will not be funded out of the NA ALMA development program as previously discussed in ANASAC meetings. The funding will be taken out of NAASC operations instead. -- $1M of the ALMA development fund in FY15 is allocated to help cover the higher-than-anticipated fuel operating costs -- The upcoming NA call for studies and projects will be for FY13 and FY14 combined. A maximum of $2.63M is available for study and projects. However, the JAO costs of implementing phase 1 of VLBI phasing project will need to be funded from the NA ALMA development program. -- Shep has put together the science case for phased ALMA for VLBI, Europe just announced workshop for putting together the European elements. Mark KcKinnon gave a presentation at the Japan meeting that described the four phases to fully implement the EHT including ALMA. The current efforts are for Phase 1. - ASAC is working on prioritizing the scientific direction for development programs on general principles

5. NAASC during Early Science (Lonsdale)

- People: - ALMA postdoc hire: Drew Brisbin (from Cornell). - Meetings upcoming with ALMA or NAASC-related components (see above) - ALMA Data Reduction Workshop NAASC, 28 Feb-1 Mar

-- AlWootten - 2013-02-22
Topic revision: r2 - 2013-02-22, AlWootten
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding NRAO Public Wiki? Send feedback