From schilke at mpifr-bonn.mpg.de Tue Sep 7 05:57:27 2004 From: schilke at mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Peter Schilke) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:57:27 +0200 Subject: [asac]Charge 4 Message-ID: <413D8607.70307@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> Dear ASAC members, we were all supposed to make a summary of the comments and ideas on the charges we received and distribute it before the telecon, and Phil and me were supposed to do Charge 4, demonstration science. My summary is very easy, since I haven't received any input, but I'd like at least to summarize where we stand. I'm leaving to Chile today and won't be able to process any more input before the telecon. The charge is about how to select sources for demonstration science and how to facilitate involvement of a broader community. In the May 2004 report, where we brought up the idea, we diveded demonstration science into two categories: - Public demonstation images: to be selected by bodies such as science advisory committees, project scientists etc. These should be pretty images which would look well in newspapers, but do not need to have any new scientific content, although it wouldn't hurt. - Science demonstation projects: to demonstate the capabilities of ALMA to a broader community. The idea then was that the data would become public immediately, and that they should be defined by an open call for ideas - not proposals. We also thought it would be good to coordinate these with programs from other facilities. While in principle the board liked this, they warned against putting too much emphasis on it - this is to demonstrate ALMA, after all. Then, there still are the DRSP projects. I still like the concepts we put into the May report. It might be useful to accompany this "call for ideas" with workshops, before, to present the capabilities ALMA is going to have, and after, to help with data reduction. These workshops should be aimed at a very broad audience. I didn't attend the Spitzer workshops, but it would probably be worth looking into the experiences made there. Talk to you at the telecon, Peter -- Dr. Peter Schilke Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie Auf dem H"ugel 69 D-53121 Bonn Germany Tel. 49-228-525-392 mobile: 49-160-7014309 FAX 49-228-525-435 mailto:schilke at mpifr-bonn.mpg.de -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wilson at physics.mcmaster.ca Tue Sep 7 16:12:41 2004 From: wilson at physics.mcmaster.ca (Christine Wilson) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [asac]charge 2 Message-ID: Hi, everyone, Here is a bit of information related to charge 2 (TAC procedures). Leonardo has obtained an update on how ESO handles handles the issues related to our charge. It has been checked and approved by the current ESO-OPC chairman and by Joao Alves on behalf of ESO. The file is attached. The original discussion of this issue by the ASAC is in the April 2002 ASAC report, which you can find at http://www.mma.nrao.edu/committees/ASAC/ I also have a mail file containing 28 emails of the discussion that led up to that report. I haven't had a chance to review it in detail, so I don't know how many ideas came up and were discarded by the time of the final report. I can send it along to anyone who is interested. I will try to obtain a summary of the procedures used at the JCMT and Gemini, which are both multi-TAC observatories. But I will not be able to do this before our telecon Thursday. Cheers, Chris -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ESOOPC_special_programmes.txt URL: From awootten at nrao.edu Tue Sep 7 17:04:38 2004 From: awootten at nrao.edu (Al Wootten) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:04:38 -0400 Subject: [asac]Telecon Thursday 1430 UT Message-ID: <413E2266.2050409@nrao.edu> ALMA Science Advisory Committee Draft Agenda for ASAC Telecon Thursday 9 September 2004 Conference Date: 2004-September-9 (Thursday) Here's the dial-in information for the telecon: CALL TIME: 1030 am EDT or 14:30 UT CALL DATE: 9 September-2004 (Thursday) DURATION: 1 hr * USA Number: 877-874-1919 * Outside USA Number: +1-203-320-9891 NOTE NEW NUMBER * Passcode: 185064 * Leader: Al Wootten AGENDA: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/asac/asacsep04agenda.html From ccarilli at aoc.nrao.edu Wed Sep 8 16:04:05 2004 From: ccarilli at aoc.nrao.edu (Chris Carilli) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:04:05 -0600 Subject: [asac]charge 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <413F65B5.2060504@aoc.nrao.edu> Attached is email exchange concerning charge 3, plus Hogerheidje document, as start to our deliberations. cc Chris Carilli wrote: > Sept 1, 2004 > > to: A. Wootten, M. Holdaway, J. Mangum > from: C. Carilli > re: Charge 3 - alma calibration > cc: P. Cox > > Al, Mark, > > Pierre Cox and I have been asked to look after charge 3 from the ALMA > board for the ISAC (august 5 charges). The charge states: > > "Help the science IPT plan their study of the impact of calibration on > a handful of the most challenging major science goals, in particular > by providing the ASAC's views on the types of projects you feel are > the most challenging from a calibration point of view. Review and > comment on the science IPT report when finished." > > Have you'all started any such effort? In the ASAC report from June we > had a short section on calibration demands, and a few examples expanded > from the DRSP: > > Carilli - high z star forming galaxy SEDs and T_dust -- ALMA memo 492 > Dutrey - protoplanetary disks and dust absorption coefficeint (beta) > Bacmann - density and temp profile in pre-stellar cores > > None of these was particularly demanding, typically at the 3% to 10% > level. > > Pierre and I will comb the DRSP, and perhaps previous ALMA science > documents, for high profile science projects that are very demanding > on the calibration. Also, Hogerheidje has a distillation of the DRSP > with amplitude calibration requirements (attached). We can hijack that > as well. > Possible calibration issues we might consider: phase, amplitude > (relative, absolute), polarization, bandpass. Unclear what the board > had in mind, except my impression was that they really wanted > us to focus on the 1% calibration bugga-boo? > > Guidance on how to proceed, and an up-date on what the IPT is doing, > would be most appreciated. The ISAC telecon is Sept. 9, and the ISAC > meeting is Sept 28. Having something to discuss prior to Sept 28 would > be a good thing. > > thanks, > cc > > Al Wootten wrote: >Hi Chris > >1) Science IPT activities: >We've discussed the summary from Hogerheijde of calibration needs for the >DRSP at the Science IPT meeting last week and very briefly (I think no one >had read the document from Michiel) at the ImCal meeting last Tuesday. >That is, of course, the product of the Science IPT. > >I am at the moment going through that to distill what I think are >critical goals. I read the charge as focusing directly >on the top level science goals spelled out in the Project Plan and in >the Science Requirements, augmented by the projects in the DRSP (we specifically >populated the DRSP with the major science goals from the preceding science >documents). > >I intend to use these studies to guide the revision to the calibration >specifications and requirements document currently scheduled to be >considered for adoption by the project by the change control board on >10 September. I plan to have a new draft of that document ready tomorrow, >if the petty bureaucratic shackles with which we have recently been bound >aren't tightened so much that I can't accomplish that (several reports to >management a week recently). > >2) Project Directives >Massimo has already told the Board (Ewine, John Richer and I were present) >last 3 November that he will not accept a document based on the >blanket 1%/3% as is in the current document. He told the Board that >he believed a 5% goal was appropriate. As Director, he bases this on >cost and schedule as much as what he believes the science requires. >In the minutes of that meeting, the Board scribe wrote that as 5% in >stability and John Richer, Ewine and I were unable to get that changed in >the minutes. The written record shows no guidance from project leadership >or from the Board on calibration. In my talk to at ALMA Week and at the >ASAC meeting in May I proposed doing that. When the Cal Specs and Reqs came >before the CCB in March Massimo directed me to revise the document to >reflect a calibration goal which we can demonstrate is achievable and which >we can demonstrate is necessary for the scientific goals of ALMA. >Currently, I think the Science IPT would agree that we cannot demonstrate that >1% amplitude calibration is achievable. I think we can demonstrate that >3% is achievable at the lower frequencies and at least make a convincing case >that 5% is achievable at the higher frequencies. > >It seems to me at this point, from Hogerheijde's studies, >Butler's studies and my own study, that we should focus on 5% absolute >calibration and relative calibration accuracy of 3%/5%. It is clear to me >that the project leadership believes that the cost of trying to achieve >1% is too great. One could argue that 10% absolute calibration accuracy is >sufficient for most projects. Personally, I don't think that is sufficiently >forward thinking. > >3) Science IPT plans >Right now the Board is reconsidering a rewrite of the Project Plan. The >Science Requirements document is written from the point of view of PP v1.0. >That has not been adopted but the current version does have comments I've >received (I'm sure Beasley will demand more revisions when he arrives) >addressed. Below this are the system technical specs, recently approved by >the CCB and the calibration specs and reqs. Below that is the calibration >plan, which demonstrates how the cal specs and reqs will be met. Most of >the 'demonstration' is in documents in the memo series which, as you know, >are externally reviewed before becoming part of the plan. The next version >of the Calibration Plan is due 1 Oct, but the current version is pretty >complete, I believe. An element which is missing is the examples, which >will be based on the DRSP and the survey of calibration needs of its projects. >If you and Pierre and the ASAC would like to suggest some particularly >challenging projects, I think examples of challenging projects would be >useful for the CP. > >4) ASAC >I proposed a strawman agenda to the ASAC leadership on 13 August but I have >had no comment whatsoever from them on it. I'm glad you and Pierre are >actively pursuing this charge--perhaps you should cc Schilke and Turner. >I've just been summoned to court on 28 Sept so I'll miss that morning at >least. BTW there is a link to the strawman agenda on the 31 August >agenda of the Imaging and Calibration group--or get it directly from: >http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/asaccvilleagendav0.50.html >Comments would be appreciated. > >Cieux clairs, >Al >+--------------------------------------------------------+ >| Alwyn Wootten (http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/) | >| Project Scientist, Atacama Large Millimeter Array/US | >| Astronomer, National Radio Astronomy Observatory | >| 520 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475, USA | >| (434)-296-0329 voice Help us build The ALMA| >| (434)-296-0278 FAX {> {> {> {> | >+----------------------------------^-----^-----^-----^---+ > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: drsp_calib_report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 584267 bytes Desc: not available URL: From soliver at nrao.edu Wed Sep 8 17:10:32 2004 From: soliver at nrao.edu (Stacy Oliver) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:10:32 -0700 Subject: [asac][almanews] ALMA Memo 503 Released Message-ID: <413F7548.3010508@nrao.edu> ALMA Memo # 503 Antenna Position Determination: Observational Methods and Atmospheric Limits John Conway (Onsala Space Observatory, Sweden) 2004-09-03 We discuss the accuracy to which ALMA antenna relative positions can be determined via astronomical observations of phase and delay toward multiple strong calibrators. We show that delay induced phase gradients across the bandpass can be used to resolve turn ambiguities so that accurate delays can estimated from the phase. At low frequencies this demands only modest stability of the bandpass phase. For this and other reasons we argue that 90GHz is the best frequency for position calibration observations. The proposed specification for short time instrumental phase stability is adequate for antenna position determination. We discuss in detail the effect of the wet troposphere and derive how position errors scale with baseline length in the case of single-baseline calibration. We then generalise to a full calibration of the whole array. It is found that the resulting position errors between two antennas is the same as if these two antennas participated in there own single baseline calibration. We find that because of the geometry and the need to solve for instrumental phase that even on short baselines the rms error on the vertical or z-component is twice as large as for the x and y components. In addition for >1km baselines while the x and y rms errors rapidly saturate the z components rms errors continue to increase. Some uncertainly in estimating errors on long baselines comes from our lack of knowledge of the outer scale of turbulence at the site. The effects of systematic gradients in the zenith wet or dry delay and methods of calibration are briefly considered. We propose that when in the intermediate 'zoom' array configurations an initial calibration of the moved antennas is made in late afternoon lasting 30minutes. Later in the early hours of the morning, when phase stability is best, we propose a 30 - 60 minute calibration of the whole array. Because of the need to apply phase corrections for antenna positions retro-actively even continuum data should always be stored in spectral line mode with channel widths <1 GHz. Final pipelining for the highest dynamic range imaging may have to wait for up to 12 hours until good antenna positions are obtained. With good 'a priori' positioning of antennas on pads and/or the acceptance of delayed pipelining as the norm after reconfiguration the first late-afternoon calibration might be avoided. For the smallest configurations we expect that the troposphere will not be a limitation on achieving the proposed goal of 100 microns relative positioning on all baselines. For larger configurations we estimate that while most baselines will achieve the target accuracy those baselines to recently moved antennas will have much larger errors. Further work is required to understand the effects of this on imaging and astrometry. View a pdf version of ALMA Memo #503. http://www.alma.nrao.edu/memos/html-memos/alma503/memo503.pdf _______________________________________________ Almanews mailing list Almanews at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/almanews From awootten at cv.nrao.edu Fri Sep 10 14:33:52 2004 From: awootten at cv.nrao.edu (Al Wootten) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:33:52 -0400 Subject: [asac][LamaMemos] LAMA Memo 808 released: "How To Tune ALMA" Message-ID: <16705.62352.623592.986622@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: lamamemos-owner at nrao.edu Subject: [LamaMemos] LAMA Memo 808 released: "How To Tune ALMA" Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 08:40:11 -0700 Size: 3800 URL: From wilson at physics.mcmaster.ca Wed Sep 22 17:13:17 2004 From: wilson at physics.mcmaster.ca (Christine Wilson) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [asac] Gemini and JCMT TAC procedures Message-ID: Hi, everyone, Here is some additional material related to Charge #2 on the ASAC agenda. I got a brief writeup from the current chair of the Canadian Gemini TAC (CTAC). I got even less information for the JCMT, which seems to have no set procedure. The little I got is appended after the Gemini email. Both Gemini and JCMT are examples of multi-TAC observatories. Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:58:22 -0300 From: George Mitchell To: Christine Wilson Subject: Re: Gemini TAC procedures Hi Christine: Let me address your three questions separately. I can only speak for the CTAC and ITAC, but I believe that the other TACs follow basically similar procedures. 1. Joint proposals (ie. proposals requesting time from more than one partner): The PI of the application to CTAC is normally one of the Canadian members of the team. Each joint proposal has a "Principal Contact". Gemini communicates with the proposers via this person. The Principal Contact need not be the PI of the Canadian application. The PI of the application to another country would normally be an astronomer from that country. The applications (forms) sent to each partner TAC are (unfortunately in my view) not necessarily identical. Each TAC sees only "its" application. As Chair, I see the other applications (i.e the other components of the joint applications) but only after the CTAC meeting, in preparation for the ITAC meeting. CTAC evaluates and ranks joint applications just as it does non-joint applications. They are not put in a separate category. Before the ITAC meeting, Gemini staff determines the ranking of joint proposals using a weighted average of each partners ranking. (There is a twist here: If one of the partners ranks a joint proposal so low that it does not make that country's time cutoff, that partners ranking is deemed not to exist. In other words, its is as if the application to that country was not made. I have objected to this, but nothing came of it. Very few applications are in this category, so perhaps there is no need to worry.) At the ITAC meeting, joint proposals are looked at one-by-one. In cases where the partner rankings are divergent, Jean-Rene Roy (ITAC Chair) asks us whether we want to change our ranking. In fact this is an important procedural point: ITAC is empowered to change the final rankings of any of the semester's proposals in any way it sees fit. Of course, the TAC Chairs have to justify any major changes to their TACs. 2. The issue of duplicate observations is addressed by the ITAC. There is no set policy to my knowledge. In recent semesters, there have been a number of duplications. These can be single-target proposals with the same target. In my time on the ITAC, there has not been a case in which all the technical details (e.g. integration time, filters, etc.) of the observations were sufficiently alike to warrant one proposal being denied. There are also multiple-target proposals which have one or more target in common. In these cases, the ITAC has made changes to the observing times and has notified the PIs of the reason. 3. There is no special category for legacy-type programs. There are certainly large proposals which return over a number of semesters, but they are evaluated and ranked each semester. There has been a recent policy decision by Gemini to permit a high-ranked proposal to remain in the queue for up to two additional semesters. A proposal must lie in band 1 in the final merged list to be considered for rollover. The decision on Canada's proposals is made by the CTAC (same for others). This is called "rollover". A joint proposal can be rolled over only if all the partners involved in that proposal agree. Another point that may be of interest: CTAC ranks its proposals. Gemini takes all the partner's tanked lists of proposals and merges them according to an algorithm which takes into account each partner's share of the time. The result is a ranked list. This merged list is divided into five "bands", of which the first four use up all of the available time (assuming no losses to weather). Band 5 is backup. In essence, then, there are only four ranks (ignoring band 5). I am not convinced that this gross smoothing is necessary, but Gemini staff are not interested in reexamining the issue. They argue that it greatly simplifies the operation of the queue. I hope this helps. Let me know if you want more! Cheers, George On Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 06:28 PM, Christine Wilson wrote: > Hi, George, > > Is there a summary on the web of how the Gemini TACs and ITACs > function? I > need the information for an ALMA meeting in two weeks. > > I'm particularly interested in how Gemini deals with proposals with > Co-Is > from two or more Gemini partners, how Gemini deals with proposals from > different teams that want to do the same object with the same > instrument, > and if Gemini has any special procedure for large programs or > legacy-type > programs. > > If the info isn't available in an organized fashion, would you be able > to > send me a brief summary of how Gemini deals with these issues? I could > send you a copy of the summary we got for ESO to help you see the kind > of > information we're looking for. > > Thanks, > Chris Wilson > > JCMT information from Gerald Moriarty-Schieven: Joint (multiple queues) proposals are allowed, but each TAG will award time separately, only from its own queue. Aside from noting joint proposals at the itac meeting, usually no special considerations are needed at the itac meeting. The ITAC consists of one member (usually the chair) of each of the national TAGs, plus one more from the UK. After I receive the proposals (including UH), I generate a source list of all requested sources from all proposals, and look for duplicated sources. I then check to see if the duplicated sources will be done with the same or different instrument. Where there is substantial overlap, I will inform the TAG chairs. If the overlapping proposals are in the same queue, I let the national queue deal with it. If from different queues, then the ITAC will deal with it during their meeting. This is usually done on a case-by-case basis. E.g. with the case Henry referred to, the ctag just made the two groups collaborate. Another case, the GRB Dutch/Canadian projects were told that both rival groups would be given the data equally, and could publish separately. (Now both groups are collaborating on the JCMT project, asking for time jointly from the NL/CN/UK queues.) Sometimes the itac merely suggests that the two groups (if awarded time separately by different queues) collaborate on the overlap sources, but doesn't enforce it. Each TAG has its own policies on large or legacy-type programs, and the time awarded to these (e.g. SHADES) is deducted from the national queue. The UK and CN TAGs allow several pages for the scientific justification for such large-scale proposals, but I'm not sure if NL does the same. As you know, there is still debate on how large-scale scuba2/harp surveys will be conducted. From momose at mx.ibaraki.ac.jp Thu Sep 23 11:13:59 2004 From: momose at mx.ibaraki.ac.jp (Munetake MOMOSE) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:13:59 +0900 (JST) Subject: [asac] input to the face to face meeting Message-ID: <20040924001359.2CA01706@mx.ibaraki.ac.jp> Hi, everyone, I apologize for my absence at the next face-to-face meeting because of affairs of my university. Attached is my input to the face to face meeting. Main contents are (i) the summary of quick imaging simulations done by Tak Tsutsumi (NAOJ) and (ii) the reviewing procedure of the X-ray satellite ASTRO-E2, a collaboration of Japan and the US and will be launched in the next February. I have asked Kawabe-san to explain these issues at the meeting if you need. Best wishes, Munetake -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: input-by-momose.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73281 bytes Desc: not available URL: