USG Meeting, March 22 2012

2PM CV 230


Telephone hub: 434 972 7268

Current USG Focus Items

  • Updating 1,2; then 5 and 4 for R8.1 (Scott)
    • Check if any of your projects can tolerate being observed in this configuration. Tell Scott now.
  • Cycle 1 documents (Carol)
    • priority is Cycle 1 docs
  • Simulations and science examples (Remy, Gerald) RandomSimC1Things
  • CDE planning (Carol)
  • mm course and related effort on instructional materials (Jim)

  • use cases for analysis tools (Adam)

Future Meetings

  • March 29:
    • Closing review of "drafty" draft call docs and materials


  • Attendance: Schieven, Lonsdale, Schnee, Evans, Scott, Mangum, Braatz, von Schill, Friesen, Hibbard, Indebetouw, Leroy, Remijan, Keohane, Halstead, Kimball

News and overview


  • ALMA Cycle 1. Please be available to contribute to these efforts:
    • March 16 (Fri): drafty drafts of Cycle 1 Proposers Guide/Capabilities technical HB & Primer available for review by all JAO/ARCs
    • ACTION ITEM: must identify key missing elements that users must know to write proposals
    • March 30 (Fri): ACTION ITEM: comments on drafty drafts due
    • April 09 (Mon): good versions of PG/capabilities, TechHB, Primer available for broad review
    • April 09-13 (Mon-Fri): OT integrated test 6 - will involve all ARC staff
    • April 23 (Mon): ACTION ITEM: comments on good versions of PG/Cap, TechHB, Primer due
    • May 09 (Wed): Penultimate version of PG/Cap, TechHB, Primer ready for review ACTION ITEM: immediate review for mistakes
    • May 14: PG needs deployed in SP. Only minor changes allowed after that
    • May 31 (Thur): CfP issued (docs deployed)
    • May 31 - July 12: Staff Helpdesk

  • Cycle 0 SB generation schedule
    • 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 news (Al) * JSG * DSG * TT

USG task reports & new business

  • HIA (Gerald)
    • drafty draft Primer ready tomorrow
  • Taiwan and EA Liaison (Aaron)
  • Documentation (Jim, Jonathan)
    • science and physics docs will be done in Plone
    • weekly meeting on Thurs at 10am on Physics docs
  • Science Web (Aaron)
  • Helpdesk (Tony)
  • PI Support & Visitors (Scott)
    • two new assignments for Contact Scientists:
      • review compact array SBs for suitability to be observed in extended array
      • inform PIs of the status of their compact array SBs
  • Development of outreach materials (Carol)
  • Workshops, Schools, Meetings (Tony, Adam)
  • Tutorials (Carol)
    • we are supporting the one day CDE that follows the TRully-Fisher meeting in GHreenbank. Adam will porvide ALMA support at the CDE.
    • there have been no enquiries about CDEs from the eNews item last month
    • the Herschel webinar went well. We will plan a proposal preparation webinar as a trial. Date tbd.

Main items

Review of Call Materials

Please note that the notes recorded below are not complete or edited for accuracy. It is not necessary to record all the details of our discussion in these minutes because the results have instead been sumnmarized into a memo by CJL (attached below) and communicated to the CfP working group.

The notes communicated to the WG do not include all comments discussed at the USG meeting because some of them can await a later stage of the editing process, and some of them have already been addressed by the WG.

Anyone wishing to be kept informed of the details of the CfP revision process is welcome to be included in the WG.

These notes taken by Lyndele during the meeting are left here, although unedited, as they may be of some value to some people.

Proposer's Guide
  • Section 1 - numbers don't add (time/# proposals)
  • Section 2 - discussions of configurations is confusing since proposers will select a resolution and largest angular scale.
  • Section 3.4 - ALMA proposal eligibility - clearly mention eligibility (PI) here. We talk about Cycle 2 and Array completion - not clear that they are tied. Remove ambiguity. Table 2 - suggests that fraction of time is exclusive, but its not. Waiting for input from Al
  • Section 4.2.4 - data procession documentation - does not say recommended CASA version. Just provide a link to latest version of CASA.
    • Andy - Jarred: Change Link to CASA -
    • Alma Helpdesk link should be provided (
    • Title should say something about Simulation
    • Gerald - to distinguish from Cycle 0, should we call it "Primer for Early Science"? Change in 4.2.1
  • Section 5.3 - Observing time - 'larger of' - UV coverage would be good enough that you would not need to ask for more time. Technical justification, instead of science case.
    • Will OT reject proposals that have more than 100 hours? If so, we should say so. Perhaps OT should give warning, rather than rejection?
  • Section 6 - 6.3.2 Needs some word-smithing - perhaps two bulleted items for clarity.Instead of configuration, say resolution.
    • last bullet - needs to say whether or not # you're getting does or does not... (Harvey)
    • should re-point people to simulation tools & examples (also in section 4).
    • number 4 should also say 'mandatory'- but in 6.3.4 says encouraged.
    • italicize - people should not attempt to retrieve proposals 'within the last 4-6 hours' instead of 'right before submission'
  • Section 7 - description of possible outcomes; must first read 2-3 pages of policy. Would prefer to see at possible outcomes first. Most of 7.1 could go into 7.2
    • Titles, PIs and co-Is will be published, but not abstracts.

Capabilities Document
  • Cycle 1, not Cycle 0
  • If you're saying what happens when you have fewer than 32, then you should also say what happens otherwise. The point is to achieve RMS.
  • last sentence of section 2 - all 12m will have... be more explicit
  • Whenever ACA is mentioned...
  • talk about resolution, not configuration - perhaps this section should not exist, if you're not allowed to pick a configuration.
  • Table - confusing. Using two tables, only need one. Also mentions ACA only, when there won't be ACA only?
  • Should not include table of configurations.
  • Section 4 - 4th para: sentence is incorrect.
  • "No ACA can be selected, if multiple spectral setups..." at the end of Section 4 - suggest that this refer to future section
  • need to give effective resolution & usable bandwidth columns (and velocity) in table (footnote for channel spacing)
  • polaremetry is not offered
  • remove absolute calibration, change to relative
  • obs modes: req that mosaic is single contiguous field? Must be equal space (mosaic). Perhaps more clearly define mosaic mode. Harvey?
  • what happened to fast switching?
  • 150 mosaic positions should be added
  • Limitations - need to be expanded upon. Second bullet - confusing.
  • Table A.3 is missing units.


-- CarolLonsdale - 2012-03-21
  • NA_comments.pdf: summary of comments on draft proposers guide and capabilities document
Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
NA_comments.pdfpdf NA_comments.pdf manage 79 K 2012-03-28 - 11:15 CarolLonsdale summary of comments on draft proposers guide and capabilities document
Topic revision: r3 - 2012-03-28, CarolLonsdale
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