July 25, 2002 from: C. Carilli (NRAO) to: ISAC re: minutes from July 25 telecon cc: Ron.Ekers@atnf.csiro.au Attending members: Carilli, Cordes, Dickey, Doelman, Dougherty, Feretti, Gaensler, vd Hulst, Lazio, Lonsdale, Owen, Sadler ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Minutes from previous meeting were introduced. Gaenslar wanted clarification about the timing of the ISAC-only internal discussions (ie. on topics not related to the WP review process) in Groningen. The current plan is to hold these discussions at the end of the first day of the meeting (Tuesday 16:00-18:00). A second session will be held Wed morning for individual ISAC WGs to discuss issues associated with the WP reviews in preparation for the afternoon breakout sessions. -------------------- 2. First agenda item: Progress reports on the white paper review process. WG1 (Galactic/nearby galaxies): Dickey/Gaenslar have contact WG members and other relevant parties, and have been through the proposed WP designs in detail. WG2 (transients, etc...): Lazio/Cordes say that the WG is working its way through the documentation and should have review forms completed. Cordes brought up the issue of SKA advertising to the broader community, and coordination of the SKA science case definition with other projects such as GMST, NGST, Constellation X. Owen/Jones expressed concern that we need to narrow down the concepts before 'going public'. This will be a major item for consideration during the ISAC-internal discussion in Groningen. WG3 (The Early Universe and Large Scale Structure): Briggs was not attending, but has communicated via email that he has started the process. WG4 (Galaxy Evolution): vd Hulst said that the WG members and others have been contacted. The big question seems to be high vs. low frequency, and whether CO/molecular line studies are level 1 or level 2? It was noted that Leo Blitz recently expresses his strong opinion that such studies are Level 1 science for SKA. It was also noted that R. Windhorst has been working extensively on the 'natural confusion' problem, in the context of both the SKA and NSGT. vd Hulst has invited him to participate as a member of WG4. The general issue was raised as to broadening the community involvement in SKA science discussions, with unanimous support for such a process. This will be a major item for consideration in the ISAC internal discussions in Groningen. WG5 (Active Galactic Nuclei and Super Massive Black Holes): Falcke was not at the meeting, but Jones said he has given him all the relevant information on the working group. WG6 (Life Cycle of Stars): Dougherty has communicated the relevant information to the WG members. He has been in close contact with Wilner wrt the WP review forms. He said the clearest issue for the group is the high frequency limit. WG7 (Solar System and Planetary Science): Carilli pointed out that the chair for this group remains empty. He has filled-out review forms based on the various SKA science documents from the past. WG8 (The Intergalactic Medium): Feretti says she has contacted WG members and others in Bologna concerning level 1 science goals for IGM studies and SZ studies. WP review forms will be completed in the coming week. An important issue in this panel is short UV spacing coverage. Most WP designs do not give detail as to brightness temp sensitivity. WG9 (Spacecraft Tracking and telemetry (+geodesy?)): Dayton Jones pointed out that the main issue is getting frequency coverage to 30 GHz. Only 1 design currently does this. Sky coverage is also an issue, but not critical if the required frequencies are not covered. Initial review forms have been sent to CC. Sadler brought up the point that other projects (NGST,...) are paying individuals to work on the science case. The general issue of travel funding for ISAC members (and others) was discussed. We've already lost university-based researchers from the science team due to lack of travel support. --------------------- Agenda item 2: ISAC-defined breakout sessions in Groningen Carilli listed the currently proposed breakout sessions: low and high freq limits Field of View multibeaming and response time configuration RFI mitigation correlator requirements There seemed to be agreement that these were the main outstanding issues, although if other issues arise in the deliberations over the white paper designs, they will be communicated to Carilli/Rawlings. It was pointed out that both RFI and correlator were subjects of EMT-defined breakout sessions on the following day, so these could be dropped. Likewise, telescope site will be discussed in detail by the site working group on thursday. A major discussion was held concerning the format for these discussions. Owen/Lazio pointed out that many of these topics inter-relate (eg. multibeaming and frequency coverage), and that many of the scientists would like to participate in more than one discussion group. The suggestion was made that, as opposed to proceeding in parallel, the discussions could be held in series, with one or two ISAC members leading an hour or so discussion on each topic. Two problems with this idea are the time limitations and the large size of the group. If we can narrow down the topics, then the time constraints are not onerous. Facilitating discussion in the large group remains a concern. Other options considered were: parallel sessions, but reducing the number (eg. two sessions only), or parallel sessions plus summary presentations to a plenary session. Cordes asked about the primary goal of the Groningen meeting for the ISAC. Carilli's understanding is that we are to evaluate the WP designs in the context of level 1 science goals and communicate these evaluations to the proposers so that they can potentially revise their designs. Much of this will occur through the preliminary review forms. The purpose of the Groningen discussions is to provide a sanity-check on the level 1 science goals, look for areas of compromise, and at least begin the science prioritization process for the engineers, in particular considering cost trade-offs. The consensus appeared to favor serial sessions, or perhaps two parallel sessions. Carilli/Rawlings will consider this in detail, and finalize discussion topics and format, and propose facilitators for each topic. It was emphasized that, if the discussions are to proceed in parallel, the WGs must ensure that their interests are properly represented in each discussion. This issue could be considered in the ISAC breakout sessions on wed morning. --------------- agenda item 3: Carilli asked for input to the science review talk at the beginning of the meeting. The WGs should choose one or two high level projects, and send relevant graphics to Carilli before August 4. agenda item 4: Rawlings discussed the process for summarizing the ISAC WP review forms. The basic process entails a matrix comparing level 1 science goals and WP designs. He emphasized that he needs the review forms by August 1, so they can be communicated to the proposers, and can be collated for his summary talk. No one expressed the desire for another ISAC teleconference prior to Groningen. ----------------------------------------------------------------------