USG Meeting, February 9 2012

2PM EDT CV 230


Telephone hub: 434 972 7268

Current USG Focus Items

  • Updating Batch3, then 1-4 for R8.1
  • Cycle 1 documents
  • Simulations and science examples

Future Meetings

  • February 15: Specific plans for mm course material (Jim, Jonathan, Adam)
  • February 26:
    • New simulations: review ideas, plan specifics, assign effort
    • Preview of new Sci Web site


  • Attendance: Carol, Jonathan, Kim, Tony, Dongchan, Al, Rachel, Adam, Lyndele, Heidi, David H., Aaron, Gerald
  • Regrets: Kartik, John, Scott, James, Brenda, Doug

News and overview

  • SB generation can resume shortly using R8.1. Timeline:
    • Feb10-Mar2: SB revisions to Batch3 projects
    • March 7: Start of Science Observing in the Extended array configuration
    • Mar 5-30: SB revisions to unfinished Batch1,2,4 projects
    • April 2-20: Generation of "Batch5" projects (more on Batch 5 later)

Coordination with other groups and activities

  • Project (Al)
  • JSG (John)
  • DSG (Tony, Adam)
    • Action item: Comments requested on new front page for Splatalogue
  • Tiger Team (Al, Adam)

USG task reports & new business

  • HIA (Gerald)
    • Continuing to work on Primer; preparing for Canadian sub-mm meeting next week. Working on SBs.
    • Brenda had her baby (daughter) last week, on maternity leave. Congrats from us all!
  • Taiwan and EA Liaison (Aaron)
    • Chin-Fei will come for March meeting; plan to have some discussions by phone beforehand so that in March plans will be solidified.
  • Documentation (Jim, Jonathan)
    • Progress on mm course; will be next week's main topic
  • Science Web (Aaron)
    • Meeting tomorrow (Friday, Feb 10) to go over new Web design plans. Aaron has a proposed model. Will let Carol know after the meeting when it might be possible to share with USG.
    • Content review will be occurring as well.
  • Helpdesk (Tony)
    • Auto-replies to alert user that there will be a delay (not 2-business-day response).
      • CORRESPONDENCE with the SciopsIPT from Jan 26:
      • 1. Who is responsible to communicate an approved major CR to the P2G:
        • Currently, Sect. 8.4, page 15 says: "PIs request major changes by submitting a helpdesk ticket.... Each and every change must be fully justified in the ticket. Approval is related back to the PI through the helpdesk (see Appendix 3). The revised phase II materials are generated by the responsible P2G member'. Then in 'Appendix 3' it says '.. the assigned ARC staff member responds to the PI with verdict. If this occurs for projects for which Phase II materials are being generated, the CS annotates the associated JIRA ticket accordingly.'
        • I guess the note in the appendix is clear enough regarding the responsibility of the CS here. I didn't see it clearly in Sect. 8.4, but the appendix looks fine. So we'll just have to say this very clearly to our CSs. So it is fine for me if you want to leave the document as it is regarding this issue.
      • 2. Who takes the decision regarding major CRs. The document above says in several places that the CRSC takes the decision. However, from the discussion with Gautier and in the SciopsIPT it is clear that the message to convey to the users is that the decision comes from the ALMA Directors. In the Proposer's Guide, it says currently that the 'Observatory' decides (in Sect. 8.1).
        • I think we have to be very clear on that. If the message to the users is that the Directors decide, then we should say so in the Helpdesk staff guide, but also in the PhaseII document, so that no confusion arises. My opinion is that the current formulation of the PG is nicely ambiguous, but if we're going to say clearly in the helpdesk ticket that it is the directors, then I suggest to update both documents, the Phase II and the PG. Once this is done we can go on and update the Helpdesk staff guide.
      • REPLY from NA:
        • Basically, we agreed it is all mostly semantics. Whether the Director is part of the CRSC or not is internal to the CRSC. I will take out the membership of the CRSC in the version of the document I am working with (A4 now). All that matters to us is that the tickets go to the CRSC, and the CRSC renders a decision. The CS should relate this decision directly to the PI. If the CRSC chooses to use words that say to attribute the decision to the ALMA director, that is completely up to them (the CRSC). They may want to do it this way now, but may decide to cast it in different terms in the future. All that seems to be allowed by the current procedures.
        • In terms of helpdesk templates, I don't think you make one. Or you have an opening, but then it should simply quote from the "note" added by the CRSC.
      • Agreed upon Action:
        • The reason why all this discussion started is because I did reply to the PI before getting a note from Gautier, because I didn't know if this would take longer than two days and we have the compromise to give an answer to the user in 2 days. I thought a template was a good idea because we cannot copy and paste from the CRSC note till we really get a reply from them, which may be longer than 2 days (in this particular case it was 8 days). The reply in such cases would read like 'we've forwarded your request to the CRSC and will come back to you as soon as we get a reply from them'.
        • So either we drop the two days answer for this kind of tickets (which I don't like), or CSRC gives a reply within 2 days, or we get a 'default' reply that we can give to the users. The easiest looks to me the third solution. - AGREED, we note in the ticket that the response may take longer than the traditional 2 day waiting period for a reply.
  • PI Support & Visitors (Scott)
    • Beginning Fed 10th SB generation, & validation with PIs, resumes using R8.1
  • Development of outreach materials (Carol) * Primer science examples is main topic today.
  • Workshops, Schools, Meetings (Tony, Adam)
    • Action Item from last week: David will Webex review pricing structures for our needs
    • Nuria and Kim will attend the summer school; other postdocs not sure yet.
  • Tutorials (Carol)

Main items

  • Science examples: decide what Cycle1 capabilities to illustrate, and writing assignments
    • Cycle0 examples were: * submm galaxies: B7 continuum and B3 CO search * mapping lensed high z galaxy: B7 line and B9 continuum * molecular absorption line at z=0.9: B3 HCN, HNC, HCO+, HOC+, CS, HC_3N * GRB afterglow: B3,6,7 continuum monitoring. SV data is only a single datum.
      • imaging CO in nearby starburst: NGC 3256 B6. Can now use SV data
      • chemistry in massive core: B6, 9
      • continuum survey of protostellar disks: B3,6,7,9. Can substitute TW Hya
      • continuum & CO J=3-2 from Pluto-Charon: B7 line and continuum, B9 continuum
    • Other SV data that could be used:
      • Antennae: Adam
      • M100
      • SgrA*

  • Results of our discussion summarized by Gerald:
    • General philosophy: don't push the envelope in the Primer. In particular downscope the B9 examples to avoid giving the impression that all the best science requires B9.
    • Post telecon: Due date for draft science cases is March 16. Will then go for review to wider group here, JAO & other ARCs
    • Ex.1) Submm galaxy survey (Gerald)
      • Max 15 sources (within 15deg) per goal to align with the Cycle 1 rules
      • Band 3 spectral scan should be much faster. Should we try to do more sources? (GS: We mention that one might consider doing spectral scans but not give numbers.)
    • Ex.2) Lensed galaxy (Gerald)
      • now much faster to do
      • plan is to just do Band 7, and state that by doing band 7 and not 9 the project has a batter chance of being scheduled because it "doesn't need pristine weather."
    • Ex.3) Abs. at z=0.9 (Gerald)
      • update band 3 numbers
      • add lines in band 6?; Al has ALMA test data of PKS1830 in band 6 or 7. Will provide figs. Can challenge readers to identify the "mystery line"
    • Ex.4) GRBs (Gerald)
      • easy, just update sensitivity/times. The SV datum adds no value for the science example
    • Ex.5) NGC3256 (Adam)
      • Adam will rewrite, using M100 instead as a case for a large mosaic needing ACA data
    • Ex.6) NGC6334 (Rachel)
      • Rachel will revise, including necessity for 9 antennas of ACA
    • Ex.7) Oph disks (?)
      • could possibly substitute TW Hya instead
      • if not, just update Oph example (& use TW Hya as "pretty picture" filler)
      • Oph continuum, try to resolve disks at more than just band 9? (disks ~1" across)
      • Action Item: no-one identified yet to take this one; Carol to assign
    • Ex.8) Pluto-Charon (Gerald)
      • can resolve pair in band 6, 7, 9
      • drop band 9?
      • add CO 2-1 in band 6?
    • Planetary Nebula example has been updated by Doug; vetted by Patrick Huggins
    • EA is providing an example
    • Captions (1-2 paragraphs) for figures of other SV data:
      • Al will write up for SgrA*
      • Adam will write up for Antennae
      • Can Adam write a figure caption for N3256 SV data to be used as a "pretty picture"?

-- CarolLonsdale - 2012-02-08
Topic revision: r3 - 2012-02-16, AnthonyRemijan
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