November 20, 2002

from: Carilli and Rawlings
to: ISAC
re: Matrix revision and level 0 science
cc: tarter@vger.seti.org, schillizi@jive.nl

To the ISAC:

Now that the white paper report is complete and submitted, the ISAC
has three near-term duties to perform. 

1. Review the compliance matrix. It was clear in the previous telecon
that there are a number of places where the compliance matrix needs to
be revised to reflect more accurately the opinions of the working
groups. Three specific tasks were identified:

 a. A number of  people pointed out areas where the Yes/Maybe/No 
    in the matrix may not be correct. 
 b. A desire was expressed to make the grading somewhat finer 
    than 3 levels. 
 c. All agreed that perhaps the most useful aspect of the review
    matrix is the detailed notes at the end of each review form
    summarizing the principal problems in meeting a given science 
    goal (if any), including recommendations on what would be 
    needed to bring the design into compliance (if possible). 
    These seem to have been truncated in the current web matrix.

We would ask that the working groups review the matrix entries for
their particular science goals, and pass on their suggested changes to
Carilli and Rawlings (coordinated through the working group chairs).
We are suggesting going to a 5 level 'compliance scale', with 1 being
no possible compliance and 5 being complete compliance. A value of 3
would mean that compliance could be reached, with some significant but
not fundamental changes to the proposed design, etc... Also, please do
not neglect item (c) above. These recommendations will be added to the
web matrix.

This should be a relatively easy process, since each group has only a
couple of science goals to review, and this will be the second time
through the matrix.


2. Level 0 science: Richard Schillizi has asked that we define a few
(about 4) science goals to be used as head-line SKA science (eg. for
brochures and review/public talks). We would ask that in the process
of the matrix review above the working groups prioritize their science
goals, then send a short list (1 or at most 2) items they want to be
considered as their level 0 entry. We will then present these to the
ISAC as a whole and have a preliminary (blind) vote to get some sense
of cross-group priorities.  Then we will hold a telecon sometime in
early January to make the final decision.

It may be that in the final decision making process a few goals are
combined into one 'theme' (eg. AGN/black hole evolution + galaxy
evolution, high z HI + CO, ...).


3. DSN science: Bob Preston has asked the ISAC to give him a few
interesting science projects that could be done with the DSN (8 and 32
GHz, 0.5 GHz bandwidth, possibly tune-able over 30 to 40 GHz range, and
likely with spectral line capabilities; configuration is not
decided.). Again, in the process of reviewing the matrix, the working
groups should highlight such possibilities, and send their suggestions
to J. Dickey and C. Carilli. This does not have to be detailed. Just a
list of the topics would be fine. John and I can flesh it out.


We should aim to have the above tasks finished before the ISSC meeting
in Arecibo, January 17-18 (note: the ISAC will not be meeting in
Arecibo, but a report will be made).  Lastly, could the working group
chairs send us a list of who they consider to be members of their
group?  Include people not officially on the ISAC whom you have been
relying on for input.

Chris Carilli and Steve Rawlings