ALMA ALMA North American Science Advisory Committee Telecon Phone Meeting 2006-September 1

This page available at

Contact Information

  • Call date: [[]
[2006-09-01 18:00 UT]] (Friday)
  • Call time 14:00 ET or 18:00 UT
  • Duration: 1 hr
  • USA Number: 877-874-1919
  • Outside USA Number: +1 203-320-9891
  • Passcode: 185064
  • Leaders: Chris Carilli, Jon Williams


ANASAC Members (Attendees in RED):
  • Andrew Baker (U. Md.) (2008)
  • John Bally (U. Col.) (2008)
  • Andrew Blain (Caltech) (2007)
  • Crystal Brogan (U. Hawaii) (2008)
  • Todd Clancy (SSI) (2009)
  • Xiaohui Fan (U. Az.) (2007)
  • Terry Herter (Cornell) (2009)
  • Paul Ho (CfA, Harvard) (2008)
  • Kelsey Johnson (UVa) (2009)
  • Doug Johnstone (HIA/DAO, Victoria) (2007)
  • Elizabeth Lada (UFla) (2009)
  • Lee Mundy (U. Md) (2007)
  • Jean Turner (UCLA) (2007)
  • Alycia Weinberger (DTM) (2009)
  • Jonathan Williams (U. Hawaii) (2008)
  • Christine Wilson (McMaster U.) (2007)
  • Mel Wright (UC Berkeley) (2008)
(Bold = Member of ASAC)

  • J. Hibbard
  • A. Wootten


1) Old Business (Hibbard)

Agenda and Minutes of 28 April 2006 meeting. Approved?
Action items from last time: * ACTION: Schedule AnasacF2f meeting.
    • WHO: Next Chair
    • Due: next meeting
    • Done: RED%Done: September 29,30 Charlottesville * ACTION: Help further define NAASC workshop on Disks
    • WHO: C. Brogan
    • Due: next meeting (9/1)
    • Done: RED%LOC organized: see below * ACTION: Send Bally ASAC invitation from Director's office
    • WHO: Director's office
    • Due: next meeting (9/1)
    • Done: RED%Done

2) ALMA Science IPT News (Wootten)

More from Al here.

3) Reports on ANASAC Charges 1,2 (Williams, subcommittee chairs)

  • This is main issue and should take most of the hour.
  • See supplementary material below.

4) Summary of NAASC proposal review schedule (Carilli)

  • Get ANASAC reports plus latest budget End Aug.
  • Draft to AUI/Director's office Sept 8
  • ASAC review of ALMA ops in Florence Sept 15, 16
  • Draft to ANASAC for review Sept 18
  • Internal NRAO delta-review Sept 28
  • ANASAC face-to-face Sept 29,30
  • Submit NAASC plan to NSF Sept. Oct 27
  • Submite ALMA ops plan to Board Oct 27

6) ASAC Report (Mundy)

  • Face to face meeting place and time (r1.44).
  • The Board has approved a meeting in Florence 16-17 September.

7) ALMA Workshops (Brogan)

  • Planning of 2nd NAASC Science Workshop is in early stages. A meeting on disks, with a session including chemistry, was well recieved at last ANASAC meeting. C. Brogan will work on this. Update?
  • A sample ALMA Meetings held in 2006:

6) Face-to-face

  • Date of next phone meeting According to our current schedule the next one should be on: 2006-10-27 18:00 UT (Friday)
  • Face-to-face Charlottesville September 29,30 2006

Supplemental Material

Charges May 2006, and subcommittee preliminary reports (Williams)

CHARGE 1. User Grants program: the grants program is a recommended priority by the decadal committee. NRAO can act as an advocate for the community in this regard, but the real impetus must come from the community. The Grants should not be considered funding for NRAO, but should be considered funding for support for the community use of ALMA. Does the community want a grants-with-observing time program associated with ALMA? What is a reasonable starting amount for such a program? The number we have penciled-in is $10 M/year, which is about $1 per second observing time (similar to space missions).

  • Can the ANASAC provide an endorsement letter for a grants program (if that is what you decide), with a rough description of the kind of grants program the user community would like to see, and possibly a guideline as to the amount?

Subcommittee: Fan, Clancy, Weinberger, Bally

CHARGE 2. Community involvement in ALMA operations: The NSF has asked us to identify areas where ALMA operations funding could be spent outside of NRAO, ie. in the US University community. The obvious areas are (i) software development: this could include software to support new ALMA observing modes, or to take advantages of new computing hardware, or advanced analysis routines, such as complex, wide field spectral line analysis and visualization. (ii) hardware development: possibly new receiver bands or advanced WVRs (iii) educational activities: scientific meetings, students, and postdocs support

  • Can the ANASAC make a set of recommendations as to where they think the Universities could best get involved with ALMA operations?

subcommittee: Baker, Blain, Johnson

Addition to Charge II:

Concerning Charge II to the ANASAC about community involvement in ALMA ops, we should clarify that we are most interested in getting input on the general process for deciding how development funds are prioritized scientifically, and then the process for deciding how best to implement these priotities. The exact detailed programs are less of an issue, since these will evolve with time, although if they have some specific recommendations in the near term, those are welcome.

One operational model for the prioritization process would be to hold regular (annual?) open workshops to discuss the science priorities of the communities, and then the best means of implementation.

CHARGE 3: A review of the North American ALMA operations funding proposal, prior to submission to the NSF. Community assessment of the proposal is an absolutely crucial task, and should make the proposal much stronger. Can the ANASAC review the draft NSF proposal, and provide a short assessment of the proposed North American ALMA operations funding plan?

subcommittee: ASAC members

ChrisCarilli - 28 June 2006
Topic revision: r3 - 2006-08-15, ChrisCarilli
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