RE: [pafska] PAFSKA CoDR documentation
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
From: <Carole.Jackson_at_email.protected>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:29:48 +1000
Dear Marco
Firstly, be assured that I meant no offence regarding the comment the inclusion of the ASTRON results/plans into the PAF documentation for the WP2.2 Dish Array CoDR. We have some good material already from Laurens and Wim, but also recognise that there could be a lot more relevant material - only in the final push to bring this together we ask that we have this very soon.
The PAF related CoDR documents are very much 'in progress'; we've just had a long session working to meld them into an appropriate 'system-level' approach. We will continue to update these as Neil's deadline approaches. Again, I have to stress that we welcome all effort towards finalising these documents. ASTRON's assessment of the PAF system costs (now, 2014 and SKA2) is a good approach which we would like to quote. We were planning an internal sanity check on the costing aspects next Tuesday (Sydney time): ASTRON's participation would be very much welcome. Please let me know.
Regards Carole
Dr Carole Jackson
Business Development Manager & Antenna IPT Leader
CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science
Phone: +61 2 9372 4407 | Mobile: 0432 925 932
carole.jackson_at_csiro.au | www.csiro.au | www.atnf.csiro.au
Address: CSIRO RadioPhysics Laboratory, cnr Vimiera & Pembroke Roads, Marsfield, NSW 2212
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Marco de Vos [mailto:devos_at_astron.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2011 5:40 PM
To: Wim van Cappellan; pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au; Jackson, Carole (CASS, Marsfield)
Subject: RE: [pafska] PAFSKA CoDR documentation
Dear Carole,
I'm not sure the current document set shows the kind of system-level approach you're sketching. I'm also not sure how well grounded several of the assumptions are, especially for Total Cost of Ownership. To be completely frank, I think some of the "typical" figures given are highly optimistic. I understand the drive to show a PAF system is "better", but please be careful not to oversell, this might do more damage than good.
In this respect: the reason for including the documents from APERTIF and others is not "particularly to reflect your technical progress". Of course this is appreciated, but the primary reason for including this material is to present various design reference points that provide a foundation and starting point for technology roadmaps.
Groeten,
Marco.
Dr. Marco de Vos - ASTRON Managing Director
ASTRON, the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy
PO Box 2, 7991 PD Dwingeloo, The Netherlands
eMail: devos_at_astron.nl / www.astron.nl<http://www.astron.nl/>
tel: +31 521 595100 / fax: +31 521 595101
>>> <Carole.Jackson_at_csiro.au> 2011-06-08 00:54 >>>
Dear Wim
Thank you for your comments. The approach for the PAF sub-system, as discussed at the Utah workshop, is to
1. As far as we can, we include an outline of a PAF system which addresses the science requirements as (i) defined at the SKA system level (DRM etc), but (ii) balancing this with a description of what the PAF system 'could do' in terms that it may well do _better_ than the baseline design (OBSPFs) if designed appropriately.
2. That for the CoDR we concentrate on a PAF system with a spec as discussed during the recent PAFSKA telecons; i.e. one around 600 - 1500 MHz or so. This is a system concept that draws strongly on a wealth of experience (ASTRON, BYU, DRAO, CSIRO) and it this experience we wish to ensure we include.
3. Following on from points 1 and 2 (above), at Utah our discussion moved towards proposing PAFs which actually address the whole SKA_1 frequency range (and perhaps SKA_2 too, in time).
The system concept documents reflect these discussions and define sytem architectures at the Concept level which could be developed to address either or both of the 'L band' PAF as well as the SKA1 frequency bands (as defined in memo 130).
At this stage of the CoDR preparation we are working hard to collate any (and all) information submitted by the PAFSKA partners in time for Neil's 15 June deadline. We would welcome anyone wishing to assist, particularly with the top-level documentation, but I trust you appreciate that time is short.
We recognise that there is a lot of material from ASTRON (and BYU, DRAO) that needs to be included in the CoDR material, particularly to reflect your technical progress; we look forward to receiving this from you this week.
Best regards
Carole
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au [mailto:owner-pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au] On Behalf Of Wim van Cappellen
Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2011 9:25 PM
To: pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au
Subject: [pafska] PAFSKA CoDR documentation
Dear colleagues,
With regard to the CoDR documentation:
As I stressed in the April 27 and May 4 telecons, at the CoDR we have
to assess the impact of one or more PAF scenarios on the SKA1 system.
These scenarios can be realistic, pessimistic or optimistic, but they
should defined. We seemed to agree on this in the telecons. However, the
current version of the CoDR documentation only contains subsystem
descriptions. It would be unacceptable if the documentation would not
contain at least a set of science requirements, a system architectural
design and a cost estimation for one or more scenarios. The impact on
the overall system should be considered since PAFs will also impact the
digital beamforming, data transport, correlation and postprocessing.
Furthermore, the current version of the documentation contains
"technical progress" of the various subsystems, but the system level
"technical progress" is not included. There have been several
measurement campaigns of PAFs on telescopes, at least at BYU, DRAO and
ASTRON, and I consider their results are highly relevant for the overall
PAF technical progress. Laurens already submitted a recent APERTIF paper
which includes our experimental results and I will submit the APERTIF
PDR documentation.
Best regards,
Wim.
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:29:48 +1000
Dear Marco
Firstly, be assured that I meant no offence regarding the comment the inclusion of the ASTRON results/plans into the PAF documentation for the WP2.2 Dish Array CoDR. We have some good material already from Laurens and Wim, but also recognise that there could be a lot more relevant material - only in the final push to bring this together we ask that we have this very soon.
The PAF related CoDR documents are very much 'in progress'; we've just had a long session working to meld them into an appropriate 'system-level' approach. We will continue to update these as Neil's deadline approaches. Again, I have to stress that we welcome all effort towards finalising these documents. ASTRON's assessment of the PAF system costs (now, 2014 and SKA2) is a good approach which we would like to quote. We were planning an internal sanity check on the costing aspects next Tuesday (Sydney time): ASTRON's participation would be very much welcome. Please let me know.
Regards Carole
Dr Carole Jackson
Business Development Manager & Antenna IPT Leader
CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science
Phone: +61 2 9372 4407 | Mobile: 0432 925 932
carole.jackson_at_csiro.au | www.csiro.au | www.atnf.csiro.au
Address: CSIRO RadioPhysics Laboratory, cnr Vimiera & Pembroke Roads, Marsfield, NSW 2212
PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Marco de Vos [mailto:devos_at_astron.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2011 5:40 PM
To: Wim van Cappellan; pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au; Jackson, Carole (CASS, Marsfield)
Subject: RE: [pafska] PAFSKA CoDR documentation
Dear Carole,
I'm not sure the current document set shows the kind of system-level approach you're sketching. I'm also not sure how well grounded several of the assumptions are, especially for Total Cost of Ownership. To be completely frank, I think some of the "typical" figures given are highly optimistic. I understand the drive to show a PAF system is "better", but please be careful not to oversell, this might do more damage than good.
In this respect: the reason for including the documents from APERTIF and others is not "particularly to reflect your technical progress". Of course this is appreciated, but the primary reason for including this material is to present various design reference points that provide a foundation and starting point for technology roadmaps.
Groeten,
Marco.
Dr. Marco de Vos - ASTRON Managing Director
ASTRON, the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy
PO Box 2, 7991 PD Dwingeloo, The Netherlands
eMail: devos_at_astron.nl / www.astron.nl<http://www.astron.nl/>
tel: +31 521 595100 / fax: +31 521 595101
>>> <Carole.Jackson_at_csiro.au> 2011-06-08 00:54 >>>
Dear Wim
Thank you for your comments. The approach for the PAF sub-system, as discussed at the Utah workshop, is to
1. As far as we can, we include an outline of a PAF system which addresses the science requirements as (i) defined at the SKA system level (DRM etc), but (ii) balancing this with a description of what the PAF system 'could do' in terms that it may well do _better_ than the baseline design (OBSPFs) if designed appropriately.
2. That for the CoDR we concentrate on a PAF system with a spec as discussed during the recent PAFSKA telecons; i.e. one around 600 - 1500 MHz or so. This is a system concept that draws strongly on a wealth of experience (ASTRON, BYU, DRAO, CSIRO) and it this experience we wish to ensure we include.
3. Following on from points 1 and 2 (above), at Utah our discussion moved towards proposing PAFs which actually address the whole SKA_1 frequency range (and perhaps SKA_2 too, in time).
The system concept documents reflect these discussions and define sytem architectures at the Concept level which could be developed to address either or both of the 'L band' PAF as well as the SKA1 frequency bands (as defined in memo 130).
At this stage of the CoDR preparation we are working hard to collate any (and all) information submitted by the PAFSKA partners in time for Neil's 15 June deadline. We would welcome anyone wishing to assist, particularly with the top-level documentation, but I trust you appreciate that time is short.
We recognise that there is a lot of material from ASTRON (and BYU, DRAO) that needs to be included in the CoDR material, particularly to reflect your technical progress; we look forward to receiving this from you this week.
Best regards
Carole
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au [mailto:owner-pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au] On Behalf Of Wim van Cappellen
Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2011 9:25 PM
To: pafska_at_atnf.csiro.au
Subject: [pafska] PAFSKA CoDR documentation
Dear colleagues,
With regard to the CoDR documentation:
As I stressed in the April 27 and May 4 telecons, at the CoDR we have
to assess the impact of one or more PAF scenarios on the SKA1 system.
These scenarios can be realistic, pessimistic or optimistic, but they
should defined. We seemed to agree on this in the telecons. However, the
current version of the CoDR documentation only contains subsystem
descriptions. It would be unacceptable if the documentation would not
contain at least a set of science requirements, a system architectural
design and a cost estimation for one or more scenarios. The impact on
the overall system should be considered since PAFs will also impact the
digital beamforming, data transport, correlation and postprocessing.
Furthermore, the current version of the documentation contains
"technical progress" of the various subsystems, but the system level
"technical progress" is not included. There have been several
measurement campaigns of PAFs on telescopes, at least at BYU, DRAO and
ASTRON, and I consider their results are highly relevant for the overall
PAF technical progress. Laurens already submitted a recent APERTIF paper
which includes our experimental results and I will submit the APERTIF
PDR documentation.
Best regards,
Wim.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wim van Cappellen Head of Antenna Group, APERTIF Project Manager ASTRON - R&D P.O.Box 2, 7990 AA Dwingeloo, The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)521 595 253, fax +31 (0)521 595 101 E-mail: cappellen_at_astron.nl internet: www.astron.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Received on 2011-06-08 18:30:20