Thursday, July 11, 2003 from: C. Carilli (NRAO) to: ISAC re: Minutes from ISAC WG chairs telecon July 10, 2003 cc: Tarter, Schilizzi, Kellermann, Hall Attached below are the minutes from yesterday's telecon. Particular Action items that arose : 1. WG chairs -- Final list of authors/topics to CC/SR by Friday 2. CC -- invitation letter to authors (for the book and Leiden conference by July 20). 3. CC -- Make sure level 0 subcommittee document, and 7 July Quarks-to-Cosmos USA response, is distributed to entire ISAC 4. DJ -- Distribute URL for GMST science case If there are items missing, please let me know. Chris Carilli Socorro NM USA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of WG chairs telecon July 10, 2003 ------------------------------------------- Attending: C.Carilli, D.Jones, J. Dickey, L. Feretti, S. Dougherty, H. Falcke Missing: S. Rawlings, J. Lazio, T. vdHulst, R. Taylor, R. Schilizzi, F. Briggs, B. Gaensler Comments during telecon ----------------------- Item 0: CC suggested that future telecons include an update on the project status by the project director (eventually to be done by the project scientist). All agreed. Item 1: Update on revised WP and ISAC response: In absence of SR, CC briefly reviewed the progress on the matrix revision based on the new white papers. Most changes, and how they affect the compliance matrix, have been spelled-out clearly within the white papers, so the task is straight-forward and Steve will present the results in Geraldton. HF asked for a summary of the major changes. DJ pointed out that the major changes involve an increase in high frequency coverage for some designs. LF pointed out that the compactness of the array remains a major issue. SD/DJ pointed out that the A/T specification is probably inadequately dealt with, in particular as a function of frequency. It was suggested that in Geraldton the ISAC discuss setting clearer guidelines, eg. three A/T specs, the nominal at 1.4 GHz, and one at 200 MHz and another at 20 GHz. -------------- Item 2: Final plans for science talks in Geraldton CC gave a brief summary of the plans for Geraldton. Monday night the closed session will be dedicated mostly to Level 0 discussion. Tuesday open sessions will be for general input to the proposed book chapters/authors. Wednesday will be science talks by the WG chairs with focus on the revised science case. These are all preparatory for the Level 0 presentation at the end of the wed morning ISAC session. All agreed on the general plan. -------------- Item 3: Progress on Book/Leiden conference. CC emphasized the need to get preliminary author list before Geraldton, so that funding can be arranged and invites can be sent out. JD asked about the purpose of the Leiden meeting. CC thought it was a time for the authors to make final outlines of their chapters, and also a time where the group as a whole could ensure uniform standards, and coordinate level 0 chapter(s). JD/others suggested that the timeline could be accelerated, ie. the outlines could be done in Geraldton and the following months, and that Leiden could be a time for the authors to write their chapters. There was general agreement on this, although CC pointed out that some groups may be less advanced that others, but that is to be expected. JD suggested a strategy session for the Book authors in geraldton. CC will try to set this up on thursday evening. --------------- Items 4: Level 0 subcommittee report SD gave an update on the level 0 subcommittee progress (note: much of this discussion took place during Item 2 above). SD believes the initial report of the subcommittee has been circulated to full ISAC. CC will make sure of this. The report includes a preliminary list of 4 themes. CC asked about his input -- the committee felt most were level 1. SD said that little input was had from others. He emphasized that the level 0 subcommittee is trying to represent the full ISAC. the current list should be considered a starting point. SD suggested that, once the ISAC agrees, the list should be opened to a larger community for comment. HF added that a senior skeptical review committee should also be formed, and all agreed (a 'red team'). DJ suggested we look at the GMST science case, and that the SKA must do at least as well. CC pointed out that he has examined ConstX, LSST, NGST cases and finds that they are good, but no better than what we are considering for SKA. SD pointed out that the current list has no strong driver for high frequencies. CC and others also noticed this, especially since in groningen the high frequency science seemed to have a fairly high priority. DJ said that many of these would be level 1, and perhaps a large number of level 1's are equivalent to a level 0. HF and SD said it was important that personal biases should not enter the process. The current high frequency drivers are in areas of: high z CO, pp disks, solar system, ammonia, water masers. All agreed that the monday closed session in geraldton is needed to consider the level 0 issue in detail. -------------- Item 5: Design reference mission: CC reported that the director wanted a new set of SKA strawman specs (the 'design reference mission' in NASA-speak), sometime before Leiden. This is also needed by the authors as a working model. CC also said that we should keep it as broad as possible (within reason) so as not to draw too hard a line too early. DJ suggested a two-level set of criteria, a baseline, plus wider set, such that authors can point out explicitly the advantages (eg. 'if the SKA operates up to 20 GHz, then...). A subcommittee will be appointed, likely headed by DJ, to ensure progress on this issue. ---------------- Item 6: Management plan RS was not available to present the management plan, but CC summarized that the plan is to have a project office including the director, a project scientist, and a project engineer, and eventually a project manager. CC and others endorsed whole-heartedly the idea of having a paid project scientist. The ISAC has been performing dual (possibly internally conflicting) roles of project scientist and scientific advisory committee to the ISSC. This situation cannot be sustained forever. -------------- Item 7: public outreach committee HF reported on the public outreach committee set up by the project director. he pointed out a perceived opposition to large scale radio astronomy projects by the astronomical community. we need: 1. a long term public outreach of RA in general 2. once SKA design has been chosen, special efforts in promotion of the project Until (2), general promotion of RA is needed, such as a traveling expo on eg the 'radio universe'. this required professional PR folks. -------------- Item 8: quarks to cosmos CC discussed the US-SKA response to the quarks-to-cosmos. It was generally agreed that we do not need to expand on the effort, nor should we have explicit 'reactionary' chapters in the science case about QtC or the Mckee-Taylor documents, but that we should be cognizant of these documents when regenerating the science case. JD emphasized that the SKA has to be pitched to a broad community of physicists and astronomers, not just to radio astronomers. =================================================================