[mmaimcal]DRSP for early science

[Bryan Butler]

we had a discussion yesterday in the AOC regarding the ALMA science 
meeting, and at the end, debra mentioned that one of the next tasks for 
the science IPT was the creation of a DRSP for early science.  does 
anybody else besides me think this is a very bad idea?  i think it's 
misplaced effort.  i think it is too difficult to foresee what will even 
be the most exciting early science, which might be 4 years away, and 
even if you could, this really puts the author's stamp on such efforts 
(something we were really worried about with the main DRSP).  if the 
exercise is just to see what modes should be supported early on, then i 
think that can be done in a much simpler way - just poll the folks in 
the science IPT, and perhaps some of the authors of the main DRSP.  for 
instance, for the planetary work, it's really only critical to have 
continuum (plus polarization), and one or two spectral line modes (which 
could be easily looked up given a table of correlator total/channel 
widths).  i suspect that you could narrow the possible early modes down 
to a half-dozen or so, which is reasonable, very quickly.  if it's not 
to see what the desired modes are, then what is the point of a DRSP for 
early science?  i guess i just don't see it...

	-bryan