[mmaimcal]Re: organizing extragalactic breakout session

[Bryan Butler]

On 5/4/04 9:27 AM, Al Wootten wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> Thanks for the good ideas Chris.  I pared down the 'To:' part of this email
> as for the abstract book I had included Fred, PR folks, Massimo, and others
> who don't really need to see this discussion.  I included the other facilitators.
> Planets and Stars might be a little lean...suggestions on that?   
> 
> 	- do people think there should be something like key
> 	projects/legacy projects done in a formal way in early science?
> 	otherwise what do we do with the 10 groups who will all want to
> 	observe all the known SCUBA sources or the Hubble Ultra Deep
> 	Field?
 >
> I think this is an important topic.  I have discussed this with R. Giacconi, who
> thinks that the proposal review committees will rank the 10 groups, the TAC will
> assign time, and the best investigation will be cited and 'win'.  He believes in
> survival of the fittest.  I think we should discuss this.  He will be there.

i agree with chris here - for a ground-based facility, i think you want 
to delay these kinds of project until later.  focus on the unique (and 
even oddball) experiments at the beginning.

maybe we should solicit schreier's viewpoint as well...

> 	- what projects do people think are obvious things to do in Early
> 	Science? can they be done well with just 6-10 telescopes?
> 
> I think the Early Science topic is important.  I plan to discuss the difficulty of
> offering much capability for this, but I think we should try to tailor what capability
> we can and will offer to topics which might yield the most impact science.  I plan to
> discuss this somewhat in the talk in Session 1 but it can't get too deep in the time there
> is available.  It won't be long before the array grows to ~30 telescopes; at what point
> for example could it do 'something exciting' with i.e. the z=10 object just discovered by
> the VLT?  Or find our own with ALMA?  Or provide followup to the objects identified by the
> LMT/GBT?

i think folks should temper their excitement about early science with a 
dose of reality in terms of how well the instrument will be working. 
yes, by the time you have 30 antennas, it should be well debugged, but 
when you have 6 or 7, i have my doubts as to just how good the data will 
really be.  i think we should be very careful about selling the early 
science and advertising capabilities that just might not be there in, 
say, 2007.

>    - discussion of the ALMA Science Center from a user's perspective
> 	- what do the people in the room think it is most critical for the
> 	ALMA Science Center to provide to the user? what would be nice but
> 	not critical to be provided?
> 
> The questionnaire originally had this angle.  The Director (NRAO) preferred to word it as it is
> now.  A problem is that this topic in the schedule comes at the end.  The questionnaire helps
> to focus on possible tasks.  This will go the Users Committee at NRAO the week after also.

seems like the questionnaire (below) doesn't give any guide as to 
priority for the science center functions, so is not as useful as it 
might be in terms of planning, unless you tacitly assume that you will 
do it all.

> 	- synergy with other surveys that are in the works (i.e. SCUBA-2,
> 	Herschel, Spitzer, etc.)
> 
> Again a number of these will be discussed in Session 4, after the breakouts.  

and, again, i think that survey work, while extremely important, is more 
properly executed later in the life of the instrument.  surveys are what 
instruments do just before they are put out to pasture, IMHO.

> 	- overview of projects in the DRSP
> 	- this could be done by you or me or divided between us. If we
> 	think we haven't got enough stuff to fill the 2.5 hours, this
> 	would be worthwhile to give the people present an idea of the
> 	spread of ALMA extragalactic science
> 
> It might be worthwhile to touch on the calibration issue before the ASAC also.
> 
> I devised a questionnaire for the AAS meeting which was not distributed
> for various reasons.  It did go to the NRAO PAC and will go the Users Committee.
> It follows.  Perhaps I could amplify this into a discussion topics
> sheet, which I could include in the book and mail to all registrants.  For some
> of these topics, the ESAC has had discussions already.  In particular, if Myers
> will discuss Band 1, we should discuss the other bands, and in other sessions as
> well.
> 
> Original version:
> 
>       Questionnaire on North American User and Science Support 
>              for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA)
> The North American ALMA Science Center (ASC) will be located in Charlottesville, VA at 
> the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) headquarters.  We would like to hear 
> from potential users of ALMA as to what kind of support they would like to have at the 
> North American ASC.  Please return this form, or email your comments to awootten at nrao.edu.
> 
> A. Astronomer Interface Issues
> 
>     Science Support
> 
> The following functions are planned for the North American ALMA Science Center:
> 	* User support for proposal preparation 
> 	* User support for 'observe file' preparation 
> 	* User support for data reduction and imaging
> 	* Calibration information/database
> 	* Visitor offices for PIs/students for on-site training and data reduction/imaging.
> 	* Data archive mirror and support
> 	* Financial support for successful programs, e.g.: 
> 		  - Students/PIs travel support to the ASC for data reduction.	
> 		  - Publication page charge support.
> 		  - Student support for data reduction at home  institution. 
> 	* Support astronomers (including 'friends')
> 	* Excellence in astronomical research relating to ALMA
> 	* Training (e.g. schools, student positions)
> 		* Outreach and education (e.g. development of web-based  information and materials 
> 		for the public, K-12, and  university/college classes) 
> 	* ALMA user feedback mechanisms
> 	* Software Development (e.g. develop new functions for reduction/imaging) 
> 	* Stable reduction package/pipeline
> 	* Simulators 
> 	* Quality control, long-term monitoring of ALMA 
> 
> 	Please provide suggestions for other functions you believe will help you to realize the 
> 	   scientific potential of your ALMA observations.
> 
> B.  Enhancements for the Baseline ALMA
>     Future equipment
> 
>        1 Which additional receiver bands (Bands 1 (31.3-45 GHz), 2 (68-90 GHz), 4 (123-168 GHz), 
>        5 (163-211 GHz), 8 (385-510 GHz or 10 (787-950 GHz) do you consider particularly
>        important?  If so for what science goals?  How would you rank these bands?
> 	
>        2  Do you have comments on the importance and/or science case for the Atacama Compact 
>        Array (ACA)?
> 
> Clear skies,
> Al