[asac] Comments ASAC report

[Tetsuo Hasegawa]

Dear Ewine,

Thank you for your effort in finalizing the documents.
Let me just propose some fine-tunings to the already great reports.

With best,
Tetsuo

***********
<<ASAC report>>

Page 4, line 1:
"significantly delayed" ->"delayed by one or two years"
(just as Kaifu-san wrote in his letter)

Page 4, line 4 in 2nd paragraph:
"$815 million" -> "$816 million"
(the cost estimate E-ACC will hear from E-AEC is more evolved one after 
detailed reviewing, and is JUST $816 million!)

Page 4, line 7 of the 1st paragraph in Chapter 4:
Insert the following sentence before the one starting "It is therefore with 
considerable reluctance..."
"Many of the enhancements are, at the same time, the key features of the 
Japanese project which has been conceived and developed."
(The statement just before this will give relief to the European and North 
American community.  But it could be read by our community in Japan as we 
are "buying in" a pre-determined project filling in the gap between the 
budget and scope.  This idea is, as you can imagine, very unpopular among 
Japanese scientific community and within MEXT.)

Page 5, line 2:
"high priority" -> "higher priority"

Page 5, Title of Chapter 5 and other places in the text:
"Atacama Compact Array" -> "ALMA Compact Array"
(What ACA stands for is am confusing problem.  In the E-AEC telecon last 
Thursday, we have chosen "ALMA Compact Array" because it states more 
clearly ACA's association to ALMA. )

Page 5, 4th paragraph:
"essential" -> "very important"
(to avoid the question "Why didn't you plan include ACA from the beginning 
then?")

Page 5, 2nd line from bottom:
Should we omit "key aspects of the source structure can be missed or"?
(I think this sounds too strong, especially in view of our converging 
understanding of the simulation results --- ACA helps us to make images 
acculate to <1%, while ALMA + SD alone can reproduce them with half the 
dynamic range.  The same statement appears in the Justification document, 
but that may be fine because it is then embedded in a background 
description.)

Page 8, last line of the 5th paragraph:
"consider the WIDAR architecture" -> "consider also the WIDAR architecture"

***********
<<Scientific Justification Document>>

Page 15, line 3 of the first paragraph:
"64 telescopes" -> "telescopes"
(We have not decided how to correlate the signal from ACA antennas, and 
making the 2G correlator so that it can handle the ACA signal as a subarray 
is still an option.  The statement here makes sense without the explicit 
number of the antennas.)

Page 23, the bottom line:
"high" -> "higher"

-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Tetsuo HASEGAWA, D. Sc.   <tetsuo.hasegawa at nao.ac.jp>
ALMA-J Project Scientist
Professor, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan
Phone +81-422-34-3780 / FAX +81-422-34-3764
_______________________________________________________________