Present: 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

EvD - 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? - EvD: didn't quite understand that comment; has been checked for 50 simultaneous antennas - 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 Japanese antenna - EvD: 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 move rate AW: currently thinking will move about 4 per week; maintenance thinking each AN goes through major maintenance in hanger every few years

- EvD: 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? EvD: alternatively could put a sentence in bold in the "In our March 2205" paragraph; highlight last sentence with some rewriting (so sentence makes sense)

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 ...)

EvD: 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: say "prematurely" instead; LT: last sentence is linked to possible future charges

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

Charge 2

- is still missing; Pepe has not been able to write it; can do something between today and tomorrow

Charge 3:

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 to DDT

Charge 4

- no comments

Other 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 earliest

NEW CHARGES 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.

-- AlWootten - 18 Oct 2005
Topic revision: r1 - 2005-10-18, 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