Yamamoto, Carilli, Schilke, Wootten, C. Wilson, Mundy, Testi, T. Wilson,
Beasley, van Dishoeck, Cernicharo, Aalto, Blain, Aalto, Cernicharo, Mardones
not available: Turner, Richer
1. News and updates: Antenna procurement, cost review (Tony Beasley)
ESO: now negotiating with Alcatel; believed negotiating for contract for
25 up to 32 antennas; sentence in bi-weekly news that Al circulated
last week is public now
Cost review: last week; see email circulated by Al; response was quite good;
was de-briefing yesterday to NSF and everybody; some comments and
questions about problems that could arise in the future i.e. future delays,
cost implications of that
2. Report from our last meeting
LT - comments: details by email
- focus today on if are things missing or things in it that shouldn't be
- make sure Exec summary doesn't get too long
LT - he put additional things we want to discuss into the intro i.e
configuration document and ARC; other option is to add a section
- move to a separate section; either one section with two sub headings or
two sections, TBD
- LT: added the sentence at the end (about checking zoom configurations);
do we agree?
: didn't quite understand that comment; has been checked for 50
- AW: previous config was for 60 AN (4 TP or broken); current config is for
50 AN; undoubtedly will be some non-functioning at an time, 1-2
- TW: 95% of AN 95% of time, so 2; AW: could replace a missing one with a
: what are we trying to accomplish with this sentence? Conway to
reconsider pad location? she had also flagged this sentence; more serious
issue maybe is the moving rate i.e. which configs will array spend most
of its time?
LT: will remove last sentence; other issue is the previous sentence of AN
AW: currently thinking will move about 4 per week; maintenance thinking
each AN goes through major maintenance in hanger every few years
: thinks should encourage more work on config plan i.e. based on guesses
of proposal pressure using DRSP; CC agrees
- LT: any comments on ARCs? EvD
: 6 regional centers, rather than 7 (Portugal)
- DM: Chile has hired a postdoc for 2006 (change from "no concrete plans")
Section on Charge 1:
LT: he has put details of each BCP into Appendix; summarized our general
recommendations in this section; many paragraphs copied from our Sept letter;
in first bold paragraph, was uncertain if should add the long baselines?
: alternatively could put a sentence in bold in the "In our March 2205"
paragraph; highlight last sentence with some rewriting (so sentence makes
LT: in next paragraph (on AN and budget), should maybe drop sentence on
50 simult and 50 operating (in view of what we have heard)
BCP 6,7 sentence: LT maybe should remove 3rd sentence "The ASAC wonders ...:"
CC: question about LO statement (7c and 7d); are we really recommending
a major study of this? AW: there hasn't been any study?
LT: intent was ASAC would need an understanding of impact on long baselines;
CC: invert it: if project is considering this seriously, then we need more
information ... (me: any changes here are also needed in Appendix A ...)
: wondering about using word "devastating" in abstract; should have
different word; Lee: use same phrasing here about "level 1 science goals"
No comments on writeup for these BCPs: 2,3,4,8,9,11
1. will need to change the phrasing here or delete (50 vs 50 operating)
5. will add something more quantitative from JR
6a: reference to solar observations in Project Plan (one of science goals,
but not Level 1); it is a science requirement ... (see science doc)
7b: add "in the short term" to first sentence
7c: make sure 7c is consistent with the revised text
7d: isn't this something that is either needed or not? should leave it
up to Backend IPT
10: Lee confused by first sentence; LT: comes from what Raffi told us at ESAC;
Peter: should not include the year, not in BCP description; EvD
"prematurely" instead; LT: last sentence is linked to possible
12: Andrew: also testing with ASTE as well as APEX? more even handed;
AW: he would stop at the first comma ... EvD
: may also want to support
testing campaigns, rather than just the routine testing
- is still missing; Pepe has not been able to write it; can do
something between today and tomorrow
CW: put in a sentence pointing out that we think a single PRC is still
the easiest way to proceed; LGM, AB agree
CW: we discussed having a common set of science sub-panels for RPC and IPC;
easy to modify text for that.
LT: in figure,
seems like Executives on top of RPCs and Director on top of IPC; not
sure this is what we meant ... connect executives with a dashed line?
Lee: RPC will be appointed by exec; must report to them in some way;
have RPC report both to IPC and to exec, and then have exec feed in
to the IPC too
Andrew: sensitivities from execs that don't have clear role in process?
this diagram gives executives clear responsibility for own program
Lee: if put the execs above the director, psychologically may work well
have RPCs report to both execs and IPC;
CW: put exec boxes on same level or higher than director; connect with
dotted line to individual RPCs
--> Andrew to try to draw some of the figures we have discussed and circulate
and we can decide which is the best
CW: include some time for non-partners, allocated by IPC; drop reference
- no comments
CW - are we going to have a list of specific recommendations at the end?
LGM - bulletized summary is good, 1-2 sentences each
LT: will try to circulate something within a few days; will wait for new
version of text from Andrew on TAC; will send it out Wednesday at the
CW circulated a list on Sunday
LT: on software charge, we could ask for a charge or we could say what is
written in the appendix about the descope and ask for a report from Computing
IPT instead of a formal charge; do we want a formal charge or just a
report, what do people think?
LM: question on third charge: is this rubbing salt in the wound? changing
the AN is taken off the table, removes any immediacy?
LT: what would we do with this charge if we had it?
AW: during cost review,
found out that contract is same AN that is at site i.e. feed legs at 45 degs
relative to Vertex antenna; should be possible for ASAC to bring previous
report to light
LT: this is different, he can rais this issue at Board meeting in November.
TW: came up during ESO STC meeting today; Stefano is aware of this and
will ask the manufacturer; looks like will rethink their design from start
to finish, because are taking 30 months to deliver first antenna
CC: have to be careful about wording; instead of two different vendors
could say "two different designs"
Lee: in CARMA, just have to have 3 types of data and figure out how to
deal with them in software
LT: if raise this charge, needs to be more specific
LT: in report to Board, could say we are worried about this and saying they
should consider if we can give any useful advice i.e. oral rather than
a formal written proposal for a charge
C. Wilson proposed that the ASAC change the time of its telecon to 2100 UT.
This change would start with the November telecon and continue at least
through March 2006.
The main reason to change the time is that Chris will be chairing the meetings
and it is hard for her to be an awake and active chair at 5 am Hawaii time.
In addition, our Japanese colleagues have been dealing with very late
telecon times (11:30 pm or midnight) for many years, and this will give
them a little break from that.
- 18 Oct 2005