[asac] draft ASAC recommendations

[Richard Crutcher]

Ewine,

I think that the initial paragraph of the ASAC recommendations document is
prejudicial to the Atacama Compact Array and therefore strongly object to
it. The current statement is that "increased cost estimates ... currently
preclude the implementation of the Atacama Compact Array." The fact is that
increased cost estimates may preclude the implementation of the full ALMA
plan recommended by the ASAC (64 12-m antennas, 5+ receiver bands, enhanced
correlator, ACA), not specifically the ACA. I realize that Stephane
Guilloteau's summary of the Paris meeting makes the statement that the ACA
may be precluded, but that is HIS conclusion, reflecting his own priorities
among possible cuts that may become necessary. I do not think OUR
recommendations should start by apparently accepting his
conclusion/recommendation, particularly since the discussion during the ASAC
telecon was still strongly supportive of the ACA. I therefore suggest that
the words:
"which currently preclude the implementation of the Atacama Compact Array"
be replaced by "which currently would not allow all ASAC recommendations to
be implemented". Regardless of how other members of the ASAC feel about the
ACA, I would hope that everyone would agree that we should not issue
statements prejudicial to any component of ALMA until the ASAC has in fact
reached a conclusion.

Dick
-------------------
Richard M. Crutcher
Professor & Chair, Astronomy Department
Chief Application Scientist, NCSA
University of Illinois
1002 W. Green Street
Urbana, IL  61801
Voice: 217/333-9581
Fax: 217/244-7638

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-asac at kochab.cv.nrao.edu
> [mailto:owner-asac at kochab.cv.nrao.edu]On Behalf Of Ewine van Dishoeck
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 7:27 AM
> To: asac at NRAO.EDU
> Subject: [asac] draft ASAC recommendations
>
>
> Dear ASAC members,
>
> Thanks for your contributions to the telecon on Thursday. The minutes will
> follow later, but Geoff, Yasuo and I would like to add a set of ASAC
> recommendations to be passed on to the project as soon as possible.
>
> Regarding the science cases: can those responsible send updates
> by Tuesday May
> 22 (tex files, postscript figures), taking into account the
> comments from the
> ASAC? I will then collate the material into a single document to be
> distributed before the May 31 telecon.
>
> Remember that the next telecon is Thursday May 31 at 14:15 UT!
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ewine
>
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>                  ASAC RECOMMENDATIONS
>                  ====================
>
>              **** Draft May 19, 2001 ****
>
>    ****Please send comments/corrections to Ewine by Tuesday, May 22. ****
>
>
>
> The ASAC, at its May 17 2001 telecon, was informed of the results from the
> Paris three-way meeting May 10-11 2001 and the increased cost
> estimates, which
> currently preclude the implementation of the Atacama Compact Array. In
> addition, the Japanese delegation outlined a proposal for components to be
> included in their proposal to the MEXT ministry on May 18 2001.
>
>
> The ASAC has the following recommendations:
>
> 1. The ASAC re-affirms the importance of the Atacama Compact Array and its
> high scientific priority. It urges the project to continue to study its
> feasibility, present an interim report at the face-to-face ASAC meeting in
> Chile in September, and investigate ways to accommodate the ACA
> financially in
> the project.
>
> 2. The ASAC re-emphasizes the unique scientific importance of Bands 1,
> 4 and 8, and requests continued consultation should further
> prioritization be
> needed.
>
> 3. The ASAC concurs that the components proposed by the Japanese
> delegation
> to their ministry MEXT -- including the enhanced/future
> correlator, Band 10
> and one additional receiver band -- are among the scientifically
> interesting
> enhancements to the baseline two-way project.
>
> 4. The ASAC urges the agencies to make sufficient funds available
> to allow for
> substantial R&D and instrumentation investments in the
> operational period of
> ALMA such that the full complement of receivers can be
> implemented within a
> reasonable timescale and that upgrades to the receivers can be
> maintained on a
> consistent schedule.
>
>
>