Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес
оригинального документа
: http://www.naic.edu/alfa/ealfa/meeting1/minutes/monaft.html
Дата изменения: Mon May 8 23:01:36 2006 Дата индексирования: Sun Dec 23 01:56:24 2007 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: п п п п п п п п п п |
Karen O. |
Let's start by going on with what Bob Brown suggested this morning.
Consider that we need to decide on the following:
|
Martha | Isn't what you added as "representatives" fall under what was referred to before as "synergies? |
Brent | I think the follow-up science goes into science? |
Riccardo | That may not be a good idea. Otherwise there will be 20 people in a single working group. Of course, all the different subgroups need to talk to each other. I am concerned about any one subgroup being to large to be able to function in practical terms. |
Steve | Maybe we could lump together follow-up science and synergy to "broader connections"? |
Noah | Sometimes we need to know about "pre-coveries", that is, work before the discoveries. |
Brent | It seems to me that everything alongs those lines comes under sciences and strategies. |
Riccardo | How big is the coordinating committee going to be? Is it open? |
Karen O. | The idea is to have the coordinators rotate among people regularly. |
Riccardo | I would advise against personalizing the surveys at this point. There may be other surveys that pop up or other people who are not here who become very involved. At some stage, we will probably have to prioritize the surveys. It would be better if we don't have to attach names of individuals to the science surveys at this point. |
Karen O. | But we are all here, having this meeting now, and it makes sense to assign names because names would be useful in identifying who is doing what. |
Steve | Let's not get hung up on whether the steering committee is made up of the coordinators of the surveys or not. Right now, we need to concentrate on producing this document. |
Riccardo | It would be unwise then not to have representatives of each survey subcommittee in the steering coomittee. Otherwise, who would report on activities of each subgroup? |
Karen O. | We will go with 5 boxes under science, one for each of the surveys. I still would like to have one person in charge of each. |
Martha | Why don't we just use the 5 people who presented this morning to represent the surveys? |
Karen O. | Let's also follow the lead of pulsar consortium, by letting others participate. We should say that nothing we decide is final. Rather, we can call for open nominations for a 2 week period so that others can participate. |
Martha | What is meant by being a "coordinator"? |
Jonathan | Why can't we try to make progress on this now, since we are all here? |
Wim |
I don't understand the issue about US funding. We in Europe also want to try to get
block funding.
|
Martha | In this country, PI funding is a problem due to the way we are funded. We can get telescope time but not have the money to do the observations or reduce the data because, for ground based astronomy, as opposed to space-based, the two are not linked. Also it is hard sometimes to get funding to do the preparatory work, like software development, especially because, under other circumstances, the observatory would be expected to provide the software. NAIC can help potentially by trying to get NSF to commit funds to support these surveys, not just the observing and science analysis, but the other parts too. How university astronomers and their students are funded is a very important issue for us. This white paper is a document written for NAIC which is a US national organization. While this issue may not be relevant to those of you outside the US, it should be part of our white paper for that reason. |
Subcommittee | Participants |
---|---|
Science justification | Lister, Jess, Liese, Steve, Trish |
Science strategies: | ditto |
Data products Phase I : | Riccardo, Christian |
Algorithms, source extraction: | Martha, Steve, Jon, Erwin |
Phase II data products: | Martha, Lyle |
Archive & Access: | Martha |
Followup Observations: | Noah, Wim |
Synergy: | Trish, Riccardo, Mary |
Organization & Outreach: | Karen O., Martha & Alison |
Funding, NSF & Euro: | Liese, Wim, Martha |
It was then proposed to elect an interim steering committee of 3 people: 1 from outside the US, 1 US but not necessarily with close NAIC experience, and 1 close to NAIC. This steering committee would be charged with coordinating and editting the production of the white paper. Nominations were taken from the group as follows:
Non-US | US |
---|---|
Lister | Karen O. |
Wim | Riccardo |
  | Steve |
Karen O. | It has been suggested by someone that we not count votes, but rather just keep all five. |
Liese | In my experience, bigger groups are often less effective. |
Steve | There is a big quantitative difference between 5! versus 3! Let's count the votes. |
Karen O. | We need meeting minutes. Karen Masters, Kristine Spekkens and Martha Haynes have been taking notes and have volunteered to produce minutes of the meeting as a record. |
Martha | We'd also like to get copies of all the talks. And we have tried to include questions, comments, and we'd like to give everyone a chance to correct us. |
It was agreed that the next meeting should take place sometime in the fall of 2003, preferably over a weekend, in an economical location. Bob Brown indicated that there might be some NAIC funding for US participants to attend the next meeting.
Lister | This relates to a conversation I had with Jim Cordes. The Pulsar folks proposing to build a 300 MHz system with quite low frequency resolution but with a fast dump rate using FPGA technology. It may be possible to increase the number of channels with 8 bit; this might be just the right solution for the high redshift surveys. These would be off the shelf devices, not hand-made chips. There may however be implementation issues causing delay and cannot be parallel with the pulsar plans. However, this would be very good for robust sample. |
Mary | But do we still have the 100 MHz system on day 1? |
Jim | The up-front cost of this is the design. Building a system is not particularly tough. However, there would be a big issue regarding having a group writing software. But there is a possibility on the long term of having 2 machines. A decision is likely this month as to who might build this FPGA spectrometer. |
Riccardo | Is there an option to have 2 constructed if they are built outside NAIC? |
Jim | It is possible. |
Lister | Interference mitigation is extremely important. WAPPS can do mitigation. |
Jim | The design for FPGA is FFT based. |
Steve | It would also be nice to have a horizon looking system for the 8th feed. That would place additional needs on the correlator. |
Lister | We do not have enough correlator to do that in HIPASS but tests show promise. |
Desh | An 8th WAPP could be produced. We cannot do cross correlation between different beams but we could crosscorrelate the 8th beam. |
Lister | You really need 2 extra beams, 2 polarizations. To get closure, you need 3 baselines. |
Desh | In principle. |
Ed | How soon will we know about the outer beams? |
Riccardo | There already is a model by German Cortes. The sidelobes are 8 dB down. |