Staff Cycle 1 Feedback and Commentary; Cycle 2 Recommendations

  • [JH] limits on #SGs, #tunings not perceived as fair. High-z people complain about number of tunings; galactic people think tunings should be able to be set using frequency instead of only via redshift; people who want to observe a number of sources across the sky think that the limit on #SGs is unfair and favors extra-galactic types. If such limits set in Cycle 2, make them more rational (number of project components (e.g. related to #independent SBs)
  • [KSc] limits on number of targets per SG is overly restrictive. E.g., there are many projects where need only ~1min integration on several bright targets, and having to split them into separate SGs unnecessarily increases overheads.
  • [KS] limits on the targets + LO settings + distance between targets prevented users from doing a blind search for high-z CO lines (this was a conscious choice on our part to not offer a "spectral scan" mode but would be good to offer this capability in the future).
  • [ML] the complicated restrictions also made it difficult to identify parts of parameter space where improvements could have been made.

OT issues
  • [JH] non-linear overheads are counter-intuitive. Should validate these BEFORE issuing OT, and give better explanation of them
  • [JH] ephemeris sources put at dec=0
  • [JH] defn of spectral and spatial dyn. range not correct
  • [JH] PWV for calibrators not same as for sources
  • [KS] Bulleted list at the end of the proposal needs to be better explained. Why is V_LSRK the velocity of choice needed? Why should the user be concerned if the source goes over an elevation of 85 degrees, etc?
  • [AM] On a submitted proposal, it is possible to change the proposal, not submit the changes, and yet the SUBMITTED label does still appear on top (creating different versions on the disk and the archive).
  • [AW] Opening multiple text editor windows at once (sometimes they become hidden) causes OT to crash upon closing the last window.
Suggested OT interface changes:
  • [AK] The Cycle 1 OT only allows a user-defined spectral binning (for determining sensitivity requirements) for spectral line mode. In contrast, if the "single continuum" mode is selected so that the 4 spws are automatically set to TDM, only a full 7.5 GHz bandwidth is allowed to be used for the sensitivity calculations. It would be useful to allow a user-defined binning in single continuum mode, too, as it is common to use TDM mode to observe wide (e.g., extragalactic) emission lines.
  • [JH] high-z people who want to observe a line in one spw and use the other spw's to observe continuum don't like that the continuum spectral windows change differentially with redshift. Would like to have an option that places continuum windows optimally for redshifts.
  • [JH?] Identify each spw as continuum or spline instead of entire setup.
  • [JH] Develop a "smart continuum" option for user-designated continuum windows that considers transmission, redshift (& SED?).
  • [JH] Including offsets in with "single pointing" is confusing. Have non-overlapping offsets go in with "single source" (and not observed using the mosaic observing mode), and overlapping offsets (to be taken using the mosaic observing mode) go into a more general "mosaics" tab that has 2 options: offsets or rectangular.
  • [JH] would like to save lines to overlay in spectral visualizer, instead of loading them each time you open the OT
  • [JH] would like to save image from spatial visualizer, instead of loading each time you open the OT
  • [KSc] for high-z people: while it is possible for a single spectral setup to, e.g., cover the same redshifted CO transition for multiple galaxies at different redshifts, it currently requires offline calculations, and zeroing of redshifts in field setup. It would be nice to create a tool that optimizes such a setup. This is much more desirable than the current capabilities in terms of simplicity of spectral setup and reduction in overheads.
  • [KSc] It should be possible to change the order of co-I. Currently to do that one need to remove the co-Is and then insert them again in the desired order.
  • [KSc] It should be possible to load a target list from the file specifying its redshift (not velocity) and its linewidth in km/s (not in kHz)
  • [RF] It would be great to be able to open two instances of the OT, to view two separate proposals at the same time.
  • [KS] Second the line + continuum mode option(s) / recommendations noted above.
  • [KS] Spectral visualizer for each different source would be very useful to ensure the lines are all correct.
  • [AM] It should be possible to define the range of spatial resolution desired - as resolving the source (or resolving it more than desired) does affect the SNR.
  • [AM] It should be possible to put the representative frequency outside from defined spw - sometimes the best repr. frequency is in the gap between spws.
  • [SS] For a single science goal with more than one small mosaic, the time calculation should know about the increased sensitivity from overlapping pointings

Other software tools
  • [KSc] suggestion for Manchester OST simulator: the queue status is great, but after one submits the job it would be good to indicate how many jobs are before that in the queue and this number should be updated once the page is refreshed.
  • [KSc] the online simulator: It was heavily oversubscribed 12 hrs before the deadline, but it was very useful in the previous days. Unfortunately there was only one site in the UK to run this online. More sites would be very beneficial.

Documentation issues:
  • [JH] latex template: include commands to format for US letter
  • [JH] Sec 5.3 of PG sounds contradictory (ToOs may be observed with cadence as long as 3weeks, but time critical with cadence less than 3 weeks will not be accepted). Clarify that time critical does NOT mean ToO
  • [JH] Much confusion about #targets vs. #independent offsets. (should OT count number of non-overlapping offsets instead?)
  • [JH] limits on #SGs, #tunings should have SOME justification
  • [KS] latex template needs more instructions on how to embed figures / wrap text around them as needed using other packages like sc or wraptext.

Lessons learned:
  • [JH] We must REALLY SCIENTIFICALLY engage in the Integrated Test. Many of the issues that arose in the last week should have caught during the IT - emphemeris at dec=0, continuum for multi-redshift, PWV assumed for calibrators, dynamic range definitions.
  • [JH] Get BButler as OT tester.
  • [SS] Do additional load testing and reconsider how to publicize addional time added to deadline

-- CarolLonsdale - 2012-07-20

-- AmyKimball - added comments 2012-07-20

-- JohnHibbard - added comments 2012-07-23

-- KimberlyScott - added comments 2012-07-23

-- RachelFriesen - added comments 2012-07-25

-- KartikSheth - added comments 2012-07-26

-- ArielleMoullet - added comments 2012-07-26

-- AlWootten - added comment 2012-07-26

-- ScottSchnee - added comments 2012-07-30
Topic revision: r16 - 2012-07-30, ScottSchnee
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