JAO Support Group Meeting, Thursday Feb 24, 2011, 10:30-11:00 ET (1530-1600UT)

Meeting Logisics

  • Time: 10:30 - 11:00 ET = 1530 - 1600 UT
  • 2nd Thursdays Location:
    • Room: CV-ER331
    • Video Hub:
    • Domestic Call In: 434-293-7109
    • Int'l Call In: 434-293-6691
  • 4th Thursdays Location:
    • Room: CV-ER209
    • Video Hub: 192.33.117...
    • Domestic Call In: 434-...
    • Int'l Call In: 434-...

Open Action Items

  1. Action on CSV Liaisons (Stuartt, Ed): Make list of "top 20" issues to know about when traveling for CSV
  2. Action on JH: Write up plan for evolution of Tiger Team effort to as follows: Tiger Team -> reduction of test datasets -> reduction scripts for SV data -> Staff training on SV data -> SV guides for users -> evaluate pipeline performance on SV data -> pipeline hueristics


  • Attendees: JH, TH, CB, KS, NM, phone: SC. Apologies: HL (Geneva), EF (Socorro), AW (OSF)
  • Minutes from last weeks meeting are posted at https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/ALMA/JAOsupportMinutes2011Feb10
  • Meeting location: we would like this meeting to be in the same room as the Tiger Team meeting (Rm 209), but that is only possible for the fourth Thursday of the month. For the 2nd Thursday, we need to still meet here. Sorry for that! I will continue to check if we can switch over
  • Reports from Chile (Al or Stuartt)
  • Pencil schedule for CSV support: NAASC2Chile
    • Any candidates for June-July-Aug? Need to wait till Ed is back. Al after TA in July; Nuria possibly July, if overlap identified. SC possibly Nov if needed.
  • Integrated Test 3:
    • Load test was successfully repeated Feb 14
    • As of yesterday we are in Part 4 of the test (Phase 2 prep). Any reports? Test matrix was originally unavailable; it is available now. Its a pretty bear spreadsheet, and doesn't cover any of the critical work-flows for ph2 (PRP mandated changes, descopes, PI changes, instructions for checking structure of resulting SBs based on work of ObsMode group). JH needs to raise this issue with SciOpsIPT - probably need another ph2 test in the future.
    • We met last Friday to discuss NA consensus on Technical Assessment. TA telecon was held on Tuesday. Todd & John need to write up NA consensus on TA Guidelines document, checklist, and other comments and send in. EU sent around draft of instructions to users for writing TAs, to be included in CfP - see "Additional Material" at end of agenda and lets briefly discuss. JH is drafting alternative description, and will send around tomorrow
  • SciOpsIPT issues:
    • Last week we addressed question from CIPT Planning meeting: do ARCs need remote access to TelCal. What we said then: We think not. To ACS? This is only needed to run the OT simulator (OSS). If OSS can be run outside of ACS, do not need ACS. Should be available at any local STEs. There is an STE at NTC, but w/old version of s/w. If and when we decide we need this, will have to find out who else uses this and coordinate any s/w upgrades. For now we can use STEs in Chile (though these might get restricted in the future). Subsequent Tiger Team meeting lead to the opposite conclusion - that we DO want to run TelCal and ACS from the ARCs. JH has entered this info into SciOpsIPT AI tracker; after EU and EA respond, needs to be conveyed to CIPT.
    • Four change requests for OT based on results from "Observing with ALMA" workshop were discussed at last weeks meeting. All four have been approved by SciOpsIPT. Need to be conveyed to developers to get indication of when they can be implemented.
    • SciOpsPoliciesWGs: new drafts of the following documents are available and will be sent to ASAC for their f2f meeting (Feb 28-Mar 1, in Santiago): PRP implementation, Phase 2 Change Requests, Archive & Science Portal. (Helpdesk staff guide & administrators guide also updated, but not distributed to ASAC). To be completed: Technical Assessment
    • Next f2f meeting: Garching, March 9-11.
  • User tutorials: USG maintains a google spreadsheet for NAASC staff to express interest in supporting tutorials at various locations at CommunityEventsDays.
    • HL, TH, CB, AW will do Sante Fe in March
    • JH & SC will do NYC, Boston AAS (May). JH will do STScI (April)
    • TH also down for CfA in April
    • NM will do Caltech & CV-based events
  • First cut at a Chile travel FAQ posted to https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/ALMA/NAASCTravelChileFAQ. I have asked Lyndele to work with a number of you (Kartik, Tony, Stuartt, Todd, Al, Ed, Nuria) to refine.

Additional Marterial:

Email from E. van Kampen on Guidelines for Writing Technical Justification , to be included in Call for Proposal

Guidelines for writing the technical justification

The technical justification is a separate PDF document, up to 2 pages long, that is uploaded using the Observing Tool. This PDF document can be produced by any word processing tool, i.e. LaTeX, Word, Pages, etc., and does not need to have a specific format. However, to help the technical assessment process, we recommend proposers to follow some guidelines as detailed below.

Technical assessors will judge the technical justification on a range of topics, going through these in a specific order, so we recommend that the proposer addresses these topics in the same order. In practical terms, a technical case should at least contain these (sub)headers in the two-page document:

  1. Project Structure
  2. Choice of Observing Mode
  3. Imaging Requirements
  4. Calibration (if non-standard)
  5. Correlator configuration
  6. Sensitivity calculation
  7. Time critical observation (if applicable)
  8. Special requirements (if applicable)

If any of these (sub)headers does not apply, simply indicate this (write 'none' or 'n/a').

For each applicable topic details need to be given, mostly relating to the choices made in the Observing Tool. The following guidelines should help putting together a helpful technical justification:

1. Project Structure

The overall structure of a project is defined in the 'Project Structure' pane in the OT, which allows the proposer to define one or more Science Goals, each containing various elements, together forming a tree structure. Here the proposer can explain his choices in the build-up of this structure.

2. Choice of Observing Mode

Justification for the choice of one of the 'Standard Observing Modes' offered during Early-Science.

3. Imaging Requirements

Justification for imaging parameters: angular resolution, largest scales, map area, UV coverage, etc. This relates mostly to choices in the OT under 'Field Setup' and 'Control and Performance Parameters'.

4. Calibration (if non-standard)

If the proposer has selected 'System-defined calibration', i.e. standard calibration, then justification is not needed here, except to indicate whether the proposer aims to perform self-calibration.'User-defined calibration' really needs to be justified in detail, including the availability of actual calibrators and the calibration strategy.

5. Correlator configuration

Justification for the correlator configuration, mostly set in the 'Spectral Setup' in the OT.

6. Sensitivity calculation

Justify the control and performance parameters in the OT. Special care should be taken for sources of low elevation, as the Sensitivity Calculator in the OT assumes minimal air mass.

7. Time critical observation (if applicable)

This is something that for Early Science cannot be specified in the OT, and has to be specified and justified in the technical case (demonstrating feasibility).

8. Special requirements (if applicable)

Specify and justify any special requirements for the Project (Phase II SBs), scheduling, or otherwise (eg. pipeline requirements).

-- JohnHibbard - 2011-02-24
Topic revision: r3 - 2011-02-25, JohnHibbard
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