ATUC Report to Director. November 2003
Minutes of ATUC Business Session, 04/11/03
Held at ATNF headquarters, Marsfield
Chair: Steven Tingay
Secretary: Jim Lovell
Meeting open: 9:37 am
1. Apologies and attendance
Attendance:
Brad Gibson, Aidan Hotan, Maria Hunt, Helmut Jerjen, Simon Johnston, Naomi McClure-Griffiths,
Steven Tingay, Mark Wardle, Brad Warren, Tony Wong
Apologies:
Joss Bland-Hawthorn, Simon Ellingsen, Chris Wright
2. Minutes from last meeting
Maria Hunt moved that the minutes from the last meeting be accepted.
Brad Gibson seconded the motion and the members passed it.
3. ATUC Organisational matters
The Chair outlined his views on how ATUC can better communicate with users and the ATNF.
The ATUC members endorsed actions in order to make some changes to how ATUC interact with the
wide user community and provide feedback to the ATNF.
3.1 - The ATUC Secretary will ask for access to the email list that is used in the ATNF call
for proposals, in order to better access all users, especially overseas users who are
currently not well represented by ATUC. ATUC will send 4 emails to this list every year,
one before each ATUC meeting asking for issues that users wish to raise to ATUC, and one
following each ATUC meeting, providing users with feedback on the meeting and perhaps
polling users on particular matters that arise from the meeting. It was thought by ATUC
that 4 emails per year is an acceptable level to this list. ATUC particularly wish to
avoid being considered a source of junk email. Also, ATUC will set up a web-based form
that will allow users to submit feedback to the ATUC at any time, on any issue.
3.2 - ATUC will aim to provide more detailed feedback to the ATNF than in the past. For complex
issues that come before ATUC for consideration, or issues for which not enough information
is available for ATUC to fully discuss during the Business Session, the Chair will delegate
the task of information gathering and detailed report drafting to ATUC members. Reports
generated in this way will be made available following the meeting, for submission to the
ATNF Director. Reports are expected to be between half a page and a page in length and
should give the ATNF better advice than the traditional two or three sentence statement
generated during the Business Session itself. An excellent recent example of such a report
is the short description of the problems with the SPC software.
3.3 - ATUC will now require members to submit short written reports ahead of the ATUC meetings,
describing the consultations they have made with users between meetings, highlighting
the demographics of the users consulted and any issues to be raised at ATUC meetings. This
will allow members who cannot attend the meeting itself to have significant input into the
meeting agenda. The written reports should be submitted to the ATUC Secretary for compilation.
3.4 - The ATNF Director has proposed that the membership of ATUC should be reduced, in response to
the ATNF Steering Committee's concern that a committee of 14 members may be unwieldy. ATUC
discussed this proposal and decided that the ATUC membership should remain between 10 and 13
voting members plus the Secretary. ATUC also decided that student membership of ATUC should
remain at 2. The reasons for an unchanged membership were: ATUC did not think that the size
of the committee was unwieldy since discussions were well managed and input from members was
balanced; at each meeting generally approximately 3 voting members were unable to attend,
reducing the size of each meeting somewhat anyway; the current size of the committee assured
a good geographical distribution of institutions in the ATUC membership and users of all
facilities; student representation
on the ATUC was felt to be essential at the current level since students are a heavy and
important component of the user community; it was also felt that it was good for students to be
involved in the organisational structure of the ATNF, for their own experience.
3.5 - Prior to the meeting the ATNF Director provided draft ATUC Terms of Reference for
consideration by ATUC. ATUC endorsed the draft Terms of Reference with a few minor
alterations and an additional item outlining the membership structure of the committee.
The revised suggested ATUC Terms of Reference follow:
* To provide advice to the Director on operational and developmental issues relating to the
facilities provided by the ATNF. These include the Australia Telescope Compact Array,
the Parkes radio telescope, the Mopra radio telescope, the Long Baseline Array, the
Tidbinbilla radio telescopes, and all aspects of National Facility support.
* To make recommendations to the Director that seek to maximise the scientific productivity
and maintain the international competitiveness of the ATNF, taking into account the likely
resource availability.
* To consult widely with the national and international community, liasing where necessary
with the national time assignment groups, to make informed recommendations to the
Director on priorities for both operations and future developments.
* To meet twice a year in both open and closed sessions, with appropriate input on
developments/responses to issues from the ATNF.
* To provide an annual written report to the Director for communication to the AT Steering
Committee in March/April of each year.
* To maintain a membership of 10 to 13 voting members, two of which will be students, plus a
non-voting Secretary. The membership will reflect the geogpaphical distribution of
users and include users of the full range of facilities.
4. Celebrating Success
First ATUC would like to express a warm welcome to the new ATNF Director, Brian Boyle, and express
thanks to the outgoing ATUC Chair, Carole Jackson, and the outgoing ATUC Secretary, Vince McIntyre.
Second, an important function of ATUC is to recognise the outstanding technical and scientific acheivements
that the ATNF staff and management make, for the benefit of users of its facilities. These efforts are highly
appreciated by ATUC and we would like to offer congratulations to the following individuals and groups for
their successes.
4.1 - Ray Norris, Michelle Storey, Peter Hall, and the LOFAR/SKA team for their success in
promoting Australia as a site for SKA/LOFAR and in particular for the success of the
International SKA Workshop, held in August in Geraldton.
4.2 - To the ATNF engineering group and the ATCA 12 mm upgrade team for completion of the
12 mm upgrade at the ATCA. This is a very positive and welcome new facility for the
ATNF user community. Also, congratulations on the development of the 12 mm 8 GHz system
at the ATCA.
4.3 - To the ATNF Director for ensuring a high level of documentation ahead of this ATUC
meeting. A number of people have commented to ATUC that this meeting has been
one of the best presented and most balanced ATUC meetings. Undoubtably this is due
to the significant preparation by both ATNF and ATUC ahead of the meeting.
4.4 - To the Director and Dave McConnell for the moves to the new project management system.
ATUC look forward to updates on the progress of this system at future ATUC meetings.
4.5 - To the ATNF engineering group and the Narrabri Observatory staff for the completion of
the new ACC system for the ATCA, also the completion of the LO/IF/comms system via
optical fibre.
4.6 - To the organisers, particularly the Narrabri Observatory staff and Tony Wong, for the
organisation of another successful synthesis imaging workshop in Narrabri. This workshop
continues to be a important focal point for Australian PhD students in radio astronomy.
4.7 - To the group who have recently undertaken a good deal of work to improve the performance
of the Mopra telescope, in particular mitigation of the coma lobe.
4.8 - To the engineering group for the successful completion of the Mars tracking receiver
for the Parkes Observatory and to the Observatory staff for the success thus far in
providing Mars tracking for NASA.
4.9 - To Jim Lovell for efforts to support usage of the Tidbinbilla antennas as part of the
National Facility.
4.10 - To Jessica Chapman and the National Facility support team on their outstanding efforts
in public outreach since the last ATUC meeting.
4.11 - To Dave McConnell, the ICT team, and the Narrabri Observatory for progress on the ATCA
data archive and development of a user interface to the archive. ATUC look forward to
the completion of this great resource for users.
4.12 - To the many ATNF staff involved in the successful organisation of the recent IAU General
Assembly in Sydney.
4.13 - To the ATNF engineering group and the Parkes Observatory staff for the completion and
installation of the 10/50 receiver at Parkes and the commissioning of the wide band pulsar
correlator at Parkes.
5. Director's response to previous ATUC reports
In the ATNF Director's response to previous ATUC reports, ATUC were asked to endorse various components
of the Director's response and additional information provided to ATUC.
5.1 - ATUC were asked by the Director to endorse the ATNF 03-04 Operational Plan and provide
advice on the key goals for the 04-05 Operational Plan.
ATUC endorses the 03-04 Operational plan. ATUC will compile advice on the 04-05 Operational
Plan and make it available to the Director.
5.2 - ATUC were asked to endorse the Director' response to the March 03 meeting, noting any
outstanding items
ATUC endorse the Director's response to the ATUC March 03 meeting and are happy with the
responses to each point raised by ATUC. No significant outstanding items were identified.
5.3 - ATUC were asked to discuss and approve the proposed annual timing of ATUC meetings, with any
appropriate adjustment.
ATUC endorse the general timing of ATUC meetings. ATUC prefer the December meeting to occur
slightly earlier, e.g. in the first week of December, so that there is time for ATUC to finalise
its report before the Christmas/New Year break.
5.4 - ATUC were asked to discuss and endorse the ATNF's progress and plans for the implementation of
co-ordinated PM practices across development projects.
ATUC strongly endorses the implementation of co-ordinated project management practices and
believes that they will add to the efficiency and success of ATNF projects, with benefits for
the ATNF and users.
5.5 - ATUC were asked to provide advice on, and support for ATNF's role in the facilitation of a
unified long-term strategy for Australian astronomy.
ATUC would like to see the ATNF play a major role in a unified long-term strategy for Australian
astronomy. However, any unified long term strategy for Australian astronomy should address the
balance between new infrastructure and support for people. In particular, the erosion of the user
base for Australian astronomy facilities, not radio facilities in particular but also the large
optical facilities, within Australian universities should be of serious concern to the ATNF. We
suggest that this issue be considered at a level higher and wider than the ATNF. In particular
ATUC feel that this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the NCA.
ATUC are happy to see a high degree of coordination between the LOFAR and SKA projects within the
ATNF, since this will allow an efficient use of limited resources. However, ATUC will reserve
discussion or comment on the level of ATNF participation in LOFAR until the LOFAR Options Paper
becomes available. ATUC do not feel that they have sufficient information available to discuss
this issue in an informed fashion at this time.
6. Six month semesters (raised via Director's report, National Facility report, and user feedback)
6.1 - ATUC does not support the ATNF decision to move to six month observing terms for ATNF
facilities. [statement by ATUC]
As ATUC have made clear in the past, there is no significant user support to move to six
month observing terms. The vast majority of users polled by ATUC prefer 4 month terms to six
month terms. Some of the users reasons for this preference have been challenged. However,
the conclusion that substantial administrative savings can be made by the ATNF in going to
six month terms is equally challengable, in the view of ATUC. In particular, no convincing
evidence has been put forward to show that potential advantages to six month terms will
outweigh potential disadvantages.
Aside from the issues that impact on the scientific productivity of the ATNF facilities, ATUC
is concerned by the process that has brought about the change to six month terms. In particular
ATUC is concerned that this decision was made via the TAC, the Steering Committee, and the
ATNF Senior Management, with consultation only with the users after the decision had been
made. It is true that ATUC represents user's views in an advisory role only and that the TAC
and Steering Committee are significant stakeholders in the ATNF, and therefore deserve high
consideration by the ATNF Management. However, many would argue that users are the prime
customers of the ATNF, a view confirmed by a number of CSIRO surveys that consistently rank
ATNF as one of the most customer-oriented divisions with the CSIRO. ATUC, in its advisory
role should have been consulted on this issue before it was adopted as a decision. As it
transpired, ATUC had a very short amount of time to a) assess the impact of six month terms
on users and b) attempt to make some considered and constructive suggestions on how six
month terms could be implemented so as to be more attractive to users. ATUC feel that we
have produced a number of good suggestions in this vein and we hope that they will be
useful to the ATNF in the move to six month observing terms. These suggestions are outlined
below in items 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4.
Users polled by the ATUC on the issue of six month terms have given reasons for their preference
for four month terms as follows. These views came from ATNF users (both within the ATNF and from
outside ATNF). Since users have given a substantial amount of feedback to ATUC on this issue,
we feel compelled to summarise it here.
* Six month terms will slow down the evolution of a pilot evaluation project to a final strategy.
* Proposals on the average will be submitted with information that is less-up-to-date, with
regard to both the science and the equipment, in particular for observations ultimately
scheduled close to the end of the semester.
* The above point is particularly important in the case of the new 3mm system for the ATCA
which is scheduled to come online in the winter of 2004. If six month terms were implemented
immediately, users would be faced with the prospect of proposing to use this system with a
complete absence of information as to the capabilities of the system, or any assurance that
the system will even exist in time to undertake observations. Since this is the first winter
that the 3mm system is likely to be used, this would be a most unfortunate situation.
* The longer planning and turnaround time will be to the disadvantage of all users with a
tight timetable, such as students and short term visitors and postdocs. This will be
particularly true if proposal deadline dates for six month terms are chosen that fall
near the traditional annual commencement of new PhD students at the start of the
academic year.
* Some users with experience with Australian optical facilities thought that similar changes
at optical facilities had been detrimental in that it affected the balance of work undertaken,
favouring survey work at the expense of smaller focussed programs aimed at specific
problems.
* With regard to PhD students, over the course of three years, a PhD program can alter
significantly in its direction. Six month terms give students less opportunity to respond
to interesting new directions in their work, or attempt different strategies. The students
polled by ATUC were concerned that the move to six month terms would encourage PhD
projects where the students simply work on the data obtained by supervisors and lead to
reduced opportunities for students to take the initiative in project direction. Such a
trend may make PhDs in astronomy ultimately less attractive to students.
* A number of users identified the scheduling of ATNF facilities in coordination with outside
facilities (such as X-ray satelites etc) as a problem that could be exacerbated by the
move to six month terms. Even the problems involved with scheduling VLBI blocks in
Australia, with restricted-resource facilities such as the Tidbinbilla antennas, would be
adversely affected. To be fair, problems of this sort exist for four month terms but these
problems are likely to be more severe with six month terms.
Some support for six month terms was received by ATUC, although these respondants
were in the minority.
* Higher quality proposals might be expected.
* There should be less pressure on the TAC members and reduced complexity in the scheduling
process.
6.2 - What does ATUC think of a Triage system? [question from ATNF]
ATUC sees little value in the triage process for the current level of over-subscription. ATUC
request that users be fully informed of changes that are made to the proposal evaluation process.
6.3 - Does ATUC have any view as to when deadlines for six-month terms should fall? [question from ATNF]
ATUC recommend the following dates for the new six-month semesters:
Proposals TAC Scheds Start End
Due Meets out Term Term
--------- ------ ------- ------ ------
1 Dec 15 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 31 Aug
1 Jun 1 July 1 Aug 1 Sept 14 Mar
This schedule takes into account university semesters (proposal deadlines occur during term breaks
and don't coincide with ARC deadlines), transition issues such as allowing users time to adjust
and plan for six month terms, the ATNF meeting schedule and allowing TAC to meet and OICs to
produce schedules. The September 1 start gives mm users opportunities in both semesters and
provides flexibility in the important first mm season for the new system. Four month terms
should remain until the September 1 semester, 2004. The last proposal deadline for four month
terms will be 15 Feb 2004 and the first proposal deadline for six month terms will be June 1 2004.
This also takes into account the usual student commencement (March). If the ATNF require any
additional user input, ATUC would be happy to consult further on the details and we strongly
encourage ATNF to keep ATUC informed in the implementation of six month semesters.
6.4 - Does ATUC have any view on how six-month semesters should be implemented and scheduled? [question
from ATNF]
ATUC will compile suggestions on the implementation of six-month semesters and make them
available to the Director.
7. Director's time (raised via Director's report and ATUC discussion)
7.1 - ATUC would like to see a clarification on the purpose of discretionary time. Time is already
available on the ATCA and Parkes schedules for observers who lose time, for commissioning
instruments and for testing purposes. Processes are in place for scheduling unallocated time and
ATUC don't see any reason for discretionary time given the amount of unallocated time currently
available. ATUC are unclear as to whether the idea of discretionary time applies to all facilities
or just the ATCA. What would be the rules for allocating discretionary time? If these rules are
substantially different and more restrictive than existing rules for unallocated time, ATUC are
concerned that this might act as a disincentive for Duty Astronomers. [statement by ATUC]
8. ATCA/Mopra report
8.1 - Can ATUC suggest ways in which Mopra can be more heavily used by Australian users? [question
from ATNF]
ATUC suggest that ATNF facilitate some Key Science Projects. For example a multi-line targeted
survey with the new wide band spectrometer that could be run using the very successful
HIPASS project as a model. There will be a Millimetre Workshop in December and a session will
be devoted to new large projects with Mopra. Also, it seems likely that the implementation of
reliable remote observing for Mopra would increase usage. ATUC suggest that implementation of
remote Mopra observing could be brought forward to the 2004 winter, so that Mopra can be utilised
in conjunction with the first observations of the full 3 mm system at the ATCA.
The ATNF could possibly find incentives for users to publish their existing Mopra data. ATUC
felt that having more Mopra results in the published literature would stimulate interest in the
facility.
8.2 - ATUC noted a comment from one user that the ATCA Users guide on the ATCA web page is dated
March 2002. [issue raised by users]
ATUC ask, what is the status of the updated Users Guide that was recently being edited by
Jess O'Brien?
9. Parkes report
9.1 - Does ATUC have any suggestions on how documentation and user feedback at Parkes can be
improved? [question from ATNF]
ATUC find the current Parkes documentation to be satisfactory. The current feedback form is also
satisfactory.
9.2 - Can ATUC suggest how to organise extra space in the Opera House? [question from ATNF]
ATUC would like to see the new areas converted to office space for observers and visitors, with
computer facilities for data reduction, network connections for laptops etc.
9.3 - ATUC noted queries from users on the timescales for planned upgrades to Parkes receivers.
[issue raised by users]
ATUC are encouraged by the potential 4dB improvement to the 12 mm system at Parkes and still
consider this to be the first priority receiver for serious upgrade at Parkes. Will this upgrade
be possible before the start of the 2004 winter season?
ATUC would also like see the H-OH receiver upgraded with the Arecibo LNA's in the near term.
Apparently this is not considered to be a large job. Could ATNF comment on the possibility
of performing this upgrade before the start of the January term?
10. Tidbinbilla report
10.1 - Does ATUC see the need for a mapping mode at Tidbinbilla? If so, when would they like to see it
implemented? [question from ATNF]
ATUC sees great value in a mapping mode at such a powerful telescope and a significant potential
demand. ATUC recommend that a spectral-line mapping mode be implemented as soon as possible, since
on the advice of Jim Lovell this seems to be not such an onerous task. ATUC also request that
Jim Lovell look into options for total power mapping and beam switching and report back to
ATUC with a realistic timescale for implementation of this additional mapping mode.
11. LBA report
11.1 - ATUC feel that access to New Norcia would improve the operation of the LBA and request that
Tasso Tzioumis provide a more detailed plan for access to this antenna at the next meeting. For
example, is the aim with New Norcia to negotiate an agreement with ESA for access? What work is
required to get the antenna ready for astronomical observations, apart from the provision of
a data recording system as outlined in item 17.4 below? [statement by ATUC]
12. National Facility report
12.1 - ATUC noted comments from users that express concern with a perceived lack of technical expertise
on the TAC, as evidenced by the textual feedback on proposals from the TAC. Users were
concerned that this was due to radio astronomers on the TAC being in the minority.
[issue raised by users]
ATUC realise that technical reviews of proposals are provided by some non-voting members of the
TAC. ATUC will undertake to poll the user community on their satisfaction of the proposal
review process, to determine if this is a widely held concern or isolated to a few cases,
and report to the next ATUC meeting.
12.2 - ATUC request that the ATNF provide ATUC the same proposal statistics that the Steering Committee
receive, as outlined under agenda item 3.4, action 8, of the Actions and Recommendations of
the ATNF Steering Committee, July 2003. [request by ATUC]
These statistics should ideally include a breakdown of proposals for overseas, ATNF, and other
Australian proposers (by country for overseas proposals and by institute for other Australian),
into the following categories, for each facility:
- proposals submitted;
- proposals allocated;
- time allocated;
- breakdown of mm usage for the ATCA;
- proposals involving students;
- breakdown on instrument (for Parkes)
13. Software report
13.1 - ATUC encourage the ATNF to pursue the MOU for aips++, potentially with a view to long-term
maintainance of the project. [statement by ATUC]
13.2 - ATUC would like to reinforce their previous statements that they consider the planned SPC
replacement a very high priority. ATUC are encouraged by the outlined plan for the SPC
replacement and look forward to a report on the expected progress toward this goal at the
next ATUC meeting. [statement by ATUC]
13.3 - ATUC notes comments from users that to be really useful, the ATCA data archive will need
to record information from the observing system. [issue raised by users]
ATUC recognise that the ATNF is well aware of this issue. ATUC suggest that on-line logging
of ancillary data be implemented at the ATNF telescopes as part of any data archives. A simple
filtering of existing electronic logs might be a useful first step and should be incorporated
into future observing software upgrades, especially as Linux becomes more pervassive throughout
observing systems.
13.4 - ATUC notes comments from users that support for the MIRIAD software appears to have declined
recently, in particular that the listed 0.2 FTE effort on MIRIAD support is difficult to
identify. [issue raised by users]
ATUC would like clarification on who is providing the 0.2 FTE support for MIRIAD. It appears
that support for MIRIAD has decreased. Given that MIRIAD is a mission critical package for the
ATNF, we encourage that it be continually supported at a reasonable level i.e. timely responses
to bug reports, supported compatibility with new computers and new versions of Linux operating
systems.
13.5 - ATUC notes comments from users that the lack of the ssh2 software on ATNF computers is making
it difficult to connect to outside institutions. [issue raised by users]
ATUC requests that ssh2 be installed on the ATNF Unix computers.
14. SKA/LOFAR report
14.1 - Does ATUC have any view on how $6M of unspent MNRF-II Gemini money should be spent? [question
from ATNF]
ATUC recommend that the money be spent on an optical/IR facility that benefits the largest
number of Australian users.
15. Technology development report
15.1 - Are delayed projects still useful scientifically? [question from ATNF]
At this stage ATUC would like to see more detail in the project plans before commenting on
overall priorities. ATUC propose to undertake a review of all projects before the next ATUC
meeting. At this meeting ATUC will be willing to advise the ATNF on projects that have such a low
priority, in the users view, that they can be dropped from this list. Would the ATNF consider this
to be useful input from the ATUC?
16. New project proposals
16.1 - Wide-band correlator for Tidbinbilla
ATUC suggest that ATNF explore the option of sharing the yet-to-be-constructed wide-band Mopra
correlator between Mopra and Tidbinbilla, as an alternative to building two correlators, which
will occupy a significant amount of precious time for key engineering personnel. It seems to ATUC
that, if possible, sharing a wide-band correlator over the winter season between Mopra and
Tidbinbilla may satisfy the demand for such an instrument on both antennas. ATUC would like
to see an analysis of the shared correlator idea at its next meeting.
16.2 - EoR experiment
ATUC can see the value in such an instrument but feel that the scale of the project is more
suited to a collaboration between the ATNF and a university department, funded possibly via the ARC.
Regardless of the funding, this project could require a significant amount of ATNF
engineering effort, which currently is the limiting factor in prioritising new projects. ATUC
suggests that engineering support for this project could also be found outside the ATNF, through
collaboration with a university department. This project should therefore be a low priority
for the ATNF.
16.3 - SUSI delay line
ATUC also think that this is a very interesting and novel idea. However it appears that this
project will be soon rivaled by the planned upgraded wide-band ATCA correlator and any resources
would be better spent on this larger and higher priority project.
16.4 - Portable VLBI terminal
This project should be considered as part of a broader upgrade to LBA facilities. New hardware
for New Norcia should only be considered after negotiation with ESA for access to the antenna.
16.5 - Pulsar digital filter bank
This project should have priority over the upgrade of the existing pulsar correlator to high time
resolution. ATUC will review the overall priority of this project along with other existing
projects, before the next ATUC meeting.
16.6 - FARADAY/PHAROS
ATNF should provide a project scientist to develop an initial science case, in the event that no
especially interested person from the user community steps forward to provide a justification for
these instruments. More information on the frequency range that these instruments might operate
over would be useful. ATUC will review the overall priority of this project along with other
existing projects, before the next ATUC meeting.
16.7 - HIFAR
This is a very large project. The scientific and technical case for HIFAR should be developed
further, in particular how it aligns with LOFAR and the SKA. ATUC will review the overall priority
of this project along with other existing projects, before the next ATUC meeting.
Meeting closed: 6:50 pm
