ATUC Report to ATNF Director
ATUC meeting 9th and
Chair: Steven
Tingay
Secretary: Jim
Lovell
Meeting
open at: 9.55
Apologies:
Attendance:
Adam Burgasser,
Aidan Hotan, Maria Hunt, Simon Johnston,
a)
Welcome to new members (raised by
The
Chair welcomed new regular members Juergen Ott and Elaine Sadler, and overseas
member Adam Burgasser.
ATNF response optional
b)
Retirements and replacements (raised
by ATUC)
Simon Ellingsen retired as a regular member after the last ATUC
meeting. Regular members Naomi
McClure-Griffiths and Maria Hunt retire before the next ATUC meeting. Student member Bradley Warren retires before
the next ATUC meeting. And Adam Burgasser retires as overseas member before the next
meeting.
The
Chair thanked Simon, Naomi, Maria, Bradley, and Adam for their efforts as ATUC
members.
ATUC
request that the Director forward the following nominations for replacement
candidates to the ATSC for consideration i.e. we will need a total of 5
replacements in place for June ATUC meeting:
Students:
Katherine Newton-McGee (U.Syd)
Steve Longmore (UNSW)
Giuseppe Cimo (U.Tas)
Steve Ord (Swin)
David Barnes (Melb)
Stuart Ryder (AAO)
Melanie Johnston-Hollitt (U.Tas)
Overseas:
To be advised (based on availability of suitable overseas
visitor during meeting)
ATNF response required
Will the Director
forward
c)
Early feedback to users by
Following
a request from a user for earlier feedback from ATUC meetings, ATUC decided to
publish the meeting report on the ATUC website as soon as it was produced.
Further
it was thought useful that the ATUC Chair give a short summary of the previous
report and corresponding Director’s response at the start of each ATUC Open
Session, to remind users at the meeting of the issues from the last meeting.
ATNF response optional
Motion: That the ATUC report from the June
2004 meeting be approved
Moved: Simon Johnston
Seconded:
Adam Burgasser
a)
Changes to ATUC ToR:
clarification (raised by ATUC)
Following
some confusion with the revised ATUC Terms of Reference coming from the last
meeting, it was clarified that the new term lengths apply for any new members
appointed following this meeting.
ATNF response optional
b)
Do ATUC comments get back to staff?
(raised by ATUC)
ATUC ask
the Director if ATUC comments under the heading “Celebrating Success” are relayed to the appropriate staff, following each ATUC
meeting?
ATNF responses
required
Do
c)
Any negative comments from users on
TAC feedback? (raised by ATUC and National Facility report)
Following
on from the item at the last meeting, in which a number of users expressed
dissatisfaction with feedback on proposals submitted to the ATNF TAC (in
particular the textual comments on the proposal in justification of the TAC
decision), ATUC were asked whether any further negative comments had been
received since the last meeting. The
ATNF TAC has made an extra effort to provide more detailed feedback.
ATUC
have not heard any further negative comments from proposers regarding the
quality of TAC comments on proposals.
The situation appears to have improved.
ATUC will continue to monitor users on this point and pass on any
relevant information to the ATNF.
ATNF response optional
d)
Comments on effectiveness of six
month terms (raised by users)
Following
from the discussion of six month terms at the last meeting, users submitted
several comments to this meeting regarding the effectiveness of six month
observing terms, in particular the long delay between proposal submission and
notification of the outcome of the TAC meeting.
Usually notification to users of the outcome of their submitted
proposals occurs only when the observing schedules are released or when they
receive the hardcopy notification in the post.
In both
cases, substantial delays can occur in scheduling and/or the postal system that
accentuate the inherently longer period between proposal submission and
notification due to six month observing terms.
ATUC
have two suggestions that will mitigate against these
problems and may lessen the administrative load on the ATNF TAC.
First,
we request that the Parkes observing schedule be produced in a more timely
fashion. We appreciate the rapid release of the ATCA schedule and thank the
ATCA OiC for producing this quickly in order to allow
observers maximum time to plan travel etc.
However, the Parkes schedule is significantly slower to appear, a
problem that users have noted previously.
We reiterate our request that the full Parkes schedule be made available
to users on a timescale similar to that of the ATCA.
Second, ATUC
sees little value in continuing to send TAC comments and rankings in letters to
proposal contact people via the regular post.
This would seem to be an unnecessary administrative overhead in the TAC
process that could be removed if the TAC emailed proposal contacts immediately
following the TAC meeting, giving the ranking information and textual comments
on the proposals, also perhaps including basic statistics such as the oversubscription
rates for that term. This method of
communication between TAC and users would be more efficient, giving them earlier
feedback on their proposal and more time to plan ahead for their observations.
In the
future, once the electronic proposal system has been developed, it would be
useful if notification emails could be sent to a nominated list of the proposal
co-is, rather than just a single contact person.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF adopt
Will the ATNF adopt ATUCs suggestion that email notification of TAC outcomes be
used, rather than via the regular post?
e)
More concise requests for responses
from ATUC (raised by Director)
In the
Director’s response to the last ATUC report, a suggestion was made that ATUC
should provide more concise requests for responses to the Director. In this report, we expand upon the “response
required” requests used in the previous report and list specific, concise
questions that ATUC would like responses to.
ATNF responses
required
Is the Director happy
with the format of
f)
Acceptance of Director’s response to
Motion: That the Director's response to the ATUC report of June
2004 be accepted
Moved: Juergen Ott
Seconded: Maria Hunt
·
Congratulations
to all staff at Marsfield and Narrabri involved with the deployment of the 3mm
system at the ATCA. This is a big
milestone for the ATCA and everyone looks forward to the first full winter
season of operation of this new facility.
·
ATUC
congratulate those involved in the efforts at active cancellation of 50cm RFI
at Parkes. The initial results appear
extremely encouraging.
·
ATUC
congratulate the eVLBI team on progress toward their
goals, including the deployment of a full disk-based recording system and
achieving real-time fringe checking capability.
·
The
Australia Telescope Online Archive looks absolutely awesome. This facility is going to be a brilliant
addition to the ATNF. We expect that the
ATOA will encourage users to increase the scientific output of the ATNF telescopes. All involved are to be congratulated.
a) Does ATUC have any comment on the apparently declining ATNF usage by
non-ATNF Australian users. (raised via Director's report and National
Facility Support report)
An ATUC
member (Maria Hunt) will participate in the appropriate Decadal Review panel
that is examining similar issues across Australian astronomical facilities.
ATNF response optional
b) In some instances, ATCA DAs for remote observers and inexperienced users
have been completely unprepared to give the required support. Does ATUC have any recommendation to make on
this issue? (raised by user)
Comments
from users described an instance where a DA who had not been to the ATCA
previously had arrived in Narrabri on a Wednesday morning to commence DA duty. The DA was scheduled to support an overseas
remote observer on Wednesday morning and had no knowledge of the observing
system or the requirements on the DA.
Consequently the DA was of no use to the remote observer when even
trivial problems arose. Other similar
comments from users described situations where very inexperienced observers
were being supported by DAs who have even less knowledge of the ATCA than the observers. Again, the descriptions of the situations
show that the DA was of no use to the observer, due to the extreme inexperience
of the DA.
ATUC are
concerned about the very low level of observing experience that some DAs have. Observers, especially inexperienced and
remote, rely heavily on the DAs to have a reasonable knowledge of the ATCA
observing system and the procedures that are followed if there is an observing
problem. There seems to be little point
in having a DA if they cannot provide a reasonable service to the observers.
ATUC suggest
that people who are undertaking DA duties for the first time (regardless of
previous observing experience) arrive earlier at Narrabri (on the Monday rather
than the Wednesday) so that they can overlap with the previous DA, become
familiar with their duties, and learn about any recent changes to the system or
current problems, ahead of when their duty is scheduled to start (Wednesday
morning).
Also, ATUC
suggest that once per year there could be an induction day(s)/weekend for new
DAs or DAs who have not observed in Narrabri for a significant period of time. This induction could be geared toward
ATNF-affiliated students (could be a requirement on students) and could be run
at least every second year in conjunction with the ATNF synthesis imaging workshop.
ATUC
recognise that it is a difficult task just filling the DA roster but feel that more
attention could be paid to the quality and effectiveness of the DA service. Priority in assigning DAs should be given to
matching experienced DAs to inexperienced or remote observers where possible. This will be important for the new 3mm system
for the following season.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF adopt
the ATUC suggestion that new DAs be required to arrive at the ATCA on the
Monday, rather than Wednesday?
Will the ATNF adopt
the ATUC suggestion that an induction be run each year to train new and
inexperienced DAs?
c) Does ATUC have a view as to the priority of the following major projects,
given that there are time/effort/return tradeoffs between them (raised via
Director's report and ATCA/Mopra report)
1.
Mopra 3mm 8 GHz system;
2.
LS/CX
ATCA frontend broadband upgrades;
3.
ATCA
upgrade of 3mm system to 115 GHz;
Following
extensive discussion by ATUC, the priority order listed above was given to
these projects. Some complicated
tradeoffs are involved in this prioritisation.
In summary, the Mopra 3mm 8 GHz system covers the 3mm frontend and
backend systems that are currently under development. ATUC note that the Mopra
8 GHz backend project is funded from an ARC grant and should therefore be
considered as non-negotiable. The LS/CX
ATCA frontend broadband project involves an upgrade
of the ATCA cm frontend electronics to allow
broadband inputs to the CABB at cm wavelengths.
The ATCA 3mm upgrade to 115 GHz involves the development of a new LO
system for the ATCA 3mm system. The
progress of this work depends somewhat on which option is taken for the Mopra 3mm system, in particular, the choice of 3mm frontend and LO at Mopra. Development of the ATCA system to 115 GHz
would benefit from development of a new LO for the Mopra
system.
The
options that ATUC were presented with for the Mopra 3
mm system for the 2005 and 2006 winter seasons are listed below. ATUC were asked to give some feedback on
which option would be preferable.
1.
Narrow
band 115 GHz option: SIS receiver can be used up to 115 GHz and 600 MHz max bandwidth
- no need for 8 GHz backend. Ready to use now.
2.
Broad
band 115 GHz option: Remove LO from SIS and use in MMIC receiver up to ~115 GHz
and 8 GHz bandwidth - requires 8 GHz backend to be fully utilised. First 2GHz module of 8 GHz backend should be
available for winter 2005. Full 8 GHz
backend should be ready for winter 2006.
Removal of LO from SIS receiver renders SIS receiver non-operational.
3.
Broad
band 100 GHz option: MMIC receiver up to 100 GHz. First 2 GHz backend module for winter 2005
and full 8 GHz backend for winter 2006.
4.
Broad
band 115 GHz option number 2: wait for LNA and new LO for MMIC to give up to
115 GHz and full 8 GHz bandwidth. Will
not be completed before winter 2006.
Faced
with these choices and attempting to take into account the impact on users and
ATNF resource allocations, ATUC decided that option 2 was the most
desirable. With this option, for the
entire winter season for 2005, capability up to 115 GHz and 2 GHz of bandwidth
will be available. ATUC recognises that
this solution is not thought to be the most elegant from an engineering point
of view. ATUC also recognise that using
the LO from the SIS receiver will impact the development of a new LO system for
the 3mm systems on the ATCA, for operation of the MMIC receivers up to 115 GHz,
to the point that this potential upgrade may be delayed. ATUC took this possibility into account
during the discussion and concluded that the case to go to 115 GHz, against the
cost and time effort involved, made 115 GHz on the ATCA a low priority
endeavour at the moment. ATUC therefore
ranked the broadband frontend upgrade for the ATCA
higher than 115 GHz capability for the ATCA.
The
suggested option for Mopra will mean that the system
will be stable for the 2005 winter season and be a much more capable system
than previously. This option also means
that the system will remain stable through the 2006 winter season. However, the full 8 GHz backend system will
be available in winter 2006. Thus, the
capability of the system will improve continuously over the next 18 months.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF adopt
Will the ATNF consider
d) Can
It seems
that the status of a number of special requirements on the CABB, like high time
resolution, eVLBI requirements, and RFI mitigation
capabilities are very uncertain. It is
not clear that there is a rigourous plan by which a
decision can be made on the feasibility of these requirements. During the ATUC Open Session a potential date
for a CABB design review was suggested, December 2005. ATUC ask that this review take place as
suggested and be used to give a go/no-go decision point for the inclusion of
CABB capabilities that will support these special requirements.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF conduct
a design review of the CABB project in December 2005 and aim to make specific
decisions on the special requirements for the CABB?
e) Can ATUC comment on the 7mm frequency range that will be useful to
users, given that there are technical tradeoffs between different options. (raised via
7mm science case presentation)
It seems
that there are a number of technical tradeoffs in the frequency coverage of the
7mm system. Given that there is a
reasonable chance that the 7mm ATCA project will go ahead, subject to a
contract being signed between ATNF and NASA, ATUC will organise a workshop (as
was done for the CABB project in September) to discuss in detail:
·
NASA
requirements, scheduling, and likely impact on users;
·
Frequency
range tradeoffs against Tsys, science drivers;
·
An
enhanced science case;
ATUC
will aim to organise this meeting for the March/April timeframe, in conjunction
with the 7mm Project Scientist.
ATNF responses
required
Does the ATNF think
that a one-day meeting to discuss the technical and scientific requirements of
the ATCA 7mm system, and the impact on users, would be useful to the project?
f) There are a number of proposals for 12mm receiver upgrade projects. Can ATUC comment on their priority? (raised in Tidbinbilla, Parkes, technology development
reports).
Upgrades
of several 12mm systems are being undertaken or are being contemplated.
1.
Parkes:
is getting new feedhorn for Apr05. Requires LNA upgrade;
2.
Spares
for ATCA 12 mm: this is scheduled to be complete by June 2005;
3.
Tidbinbilla:
a 12 mm LNA and orthomode transducer for the off-axis
system. A new downconversion
system.
ATUC see
the upgrade at Parkes as a high priority for zero-spacing mapping, surveys, and
improved performance for VLBI. However,
ATUC would like to see a project plan developed. The spare 12 mm receivers
for the ATCA is a project that is underway and also has high priority to
be completed in the first half of 2005.
The low priority project is the 12 mm upgrade of Tidbinbilla. However, it is possible that the installation
of a new 12mm LNA and orthomode transducer could take
place without an upgrade of the downconversion
system. ATUC recognise that an upgrade
of the Tidbinbilla 12mm downconversion system is more
difficult at this point.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF consider
ATUCs suggested priorities for 12mm upgrades?
Can the ATNF advise ATUC
of the feasibility of carrying out an upgrade to the Tidbinbilla 12mm system as
an extension of the Parkes upgrade?
g) What is the useful lifetime of the 21 cm multibeam?
(Question from ATNF)
ATUC
were asked to consider what the useful lifetime of the 21cm multibeam
receiver at Parkes is likely to be, in view of the availability of the methanol
multibeam receiver in the second half of 2005 and the
second phase of the 21cm multibeam
refurbishment. ATUC were presented with
the following details on the refurbishment of the 21cm multibeam
receiver.
·
Refurbishment
phase 1 complete – 21cm MB back on telescope sep04;
·
Refurbishment
phase 2
o
remaining
12 LNAs,
o
heat
shielding,
o
cooling
o
$50
- 100 k + time,
o
Increased
weight, upgrade translator?
After
much discussion, ATUC decided that a phase 2 refurbishment that was limited to
replacement of the remaining LNAs would be
optimal. While ATUC recognise that the
21cm multibeam has been a flagship instrument for the
ATNF, much of the capability of this receiver will be superseded by the xNTD on the 2008/09 timeframe. A major upgrade of the 21 cm multibeam over the next 2 years is therefore probably not
justified. It is difficult for ATUC to
predict what the useful lifetime of the 21cm multibeam
is, but expect that the end of its operational lifetime will be around the 2008
timeframe.
A minor
refurbishment of the receiver would allow currently planned surveys to be
completed with minor disruptions. The
refurbishment period would provide a good opportunity to install the methanol multibeam receiver for the first time,
however the 21cm multibeam refurbishment is not seen
to be urgent.
ATUC
would like to know how long would be required to replace the remaining LNAs on the 21cm multibeam and
would prefer to suggest a date for refurbishment at the June 2005 meeting,
after being provided with a usage plan for the 21cm multibeam
and methanol multibeam receivers over the next 12
months (see item h).
ATNF responses
required
Will ATNF consider ATUCs suggestion of a limited phase 2 refurbishment of the
21cm multibeam receiver?
Will ATNF advise ATUC
as to how long would be required to replace the remaining LNAs
on the 21cm multibeam receiver?
h) Methanol multibeam vs
21 cm multibeam at any one time at Parkes. (raised
via Parkes report)
Both the
21cm and methanol multibeam receivers are large
packages and both cannot be accommodated on the telescope at the same
time. ATUC were asked to consider the
issues involved in scheduling these large receiver packages.
ATUC
would like some indication of how the scheduling of these two receivers will be
handled starting in the 2005OCT semester. We request a detailed presentation at
the next meeting for proposed receiver schedules for the October 2005 and April
2006 semesters. This information also needs to be clearly detailed in the call
for proposals for the 2005OCT semester, in particular weighing the requirements
of large Galactic HI surveys, large methanol projects, and continued pulsar
timing projects. Specifically users need to know the technical feasibility of multibeam receiver changes and the time scales for these.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF provide
ATUC with a scheduling plan for the multibeam
receivers for the 2005 October and 2006 April terms at the next ATUC meeting?
Will ATNF provide
technical information on the scheduling of the multibeam
receivers in the call for proposals for the October 2005 term, as well as
technical information on the feasibility and timescales for multibeam
receiver changes?
i)
3mm swaps on the ATCA - what sort of
grade differential is acceptable? (Question from ATNF.)
ATUC
were presented with a proposal for 3mm scheduling during the 2005 winter period
and asked to comment. ATUC thank the
ATCA OiC Bob Sault for his well thought-out
plan. This is a useful proposal that we
fully endorse for the coming season. Until
we have information from the coming season we are happy for the TAC to use its discretion
as to the cutoff rank for cm swaps. Proposal ranking, time requested,
configuration, and source LST are all variables that impact how cm swaps are
chosen. ATUC feel that this issue is too
complicated to attempt to predict in advance a cutoff
rank for cm swaps.
ATNF response optional
j)
Strategic review of ATNF software.
Would ATUC like to be involved? In what capacity? (raised in Director's report
and Application software report)
ATUC
were asked if they would be prepared to participate in a strategic review of
ATNF software developments. ATUC are
happy to participate in this review. We
feel it critical that Tim Cornwell be involved in the process, given his
impending arrival at the ATNF and his vast experience in software matters. ATUC will work with the ATNF point of contact
for this review, Dave McConnell, to develop Terms of Reference.
ATNF responses
required
Is the ATNF happy for ATUC
to start work with Dave McConnell on setting out the Terms of Reference for the
software review?
Does ATNF support the
participation of Tim Cornwell in this review?
a) Need to remove future developments pages from ATNF web site and make
summary of project management database available to public (raised via ATUC)
The old
future developments web pages need to be removed form the ATNF web site. Likewise, some summary form of the current
ATNF projects database needs to be made publicly available via the ATNF web
pages.
ATNF responses
required
Will ATNF remove the
future developments pages from the ATNF web site?
Will ATNF make some
form of the projects database publicly available via the web?
b) ATUC review of projects (raised via ATUC)
Over the
last 12 months, ATUC has been undertaking a review of the ATNF projects
database. The projects database has
changed so much since the last ATUC meeting and has been developed to be a very
useful tool, making the ATUC review obsolete. ATUC have therefore terminated
this review. In the future ATUC will:
1. Provide specific comments on new
projects when required;
2. Respond to specific requests for
comments and priorities on existing projects;
3. Provide feedback on science cases;
ATUC
resolve to comment on a project only after a science case and project concept have
been provided as part of the project management process.
ATNF response optional
a) ATUC comment on WVR plan for 3mm opacity monitoring. (Question from ATNF)
ATUC
support the use of a WVR for dedicated continuous long-term monitoring and feel
that acquiring a new WVR would be preferable, rather than using the existing
WVR that is part of the 3mm system.
However, if the existing WVR units that are used as part of the mm
system could be “boxed up” and redeployed for long-term, continuous use, then
the ATNF should decide the least expensive and efficient path that will see
effective, long-term, continuous measurements being made.
ATNF response optional
b) Comments on 3mm polishing tasks for ATCA? (question
from ATNF.)
ATUC
were asked to comment on the list of polishing tasks required to fully complete
the 3mm system on the ATCA. ATUC wholly
approve of the list of polishing tasks, with the following comment. The second pair of 16 MHz filters is not really
a polishing task, it is a separate project. ATUC feels that the prioritisation
of the polishing tasks is best done by the project team, noting that the second
pair of 16 MHz filters has been given high priority by ATUC as a separate
project.
ATNF response optional
c) ATUC advice on how to best exploit 3mm ATCA system? (question from ATNF)
ATUC
were asked for advice on how the new 3mm system can best be exploited. ATUC feel that improved knowledge of calibrators,
capabilities for fine frequency tuning, and improved weather monitoring would
help users and the ATNF exploit the new facilities. ATUC acknowledge that both
users and the ATNF are putting in a great effort to make the best use of the
3mm system.
ATNF response optional
d) 7th antenna for ATCA (raised by user)
A user
suggested that the ATNF provide a 7th antenna for the ATCA. ATUC feel that this is not feasible at this
point.
ATNF response optional
e) Overseas remote observing (raised by user)
ATUC were
asked by a user to suggest dropping the requirement that overseas observers be
a DA before being allowed to remote observe from overseas. Overseas users should still be required to
provide DA services as all other users are required to, however. And only experienced ATCA observers should be
allowed to observe remotely from overseas.
ATNF responses
required
Will ATNF adopt the
ATUC suggestion that overseas observers need not be a DA before being allowed
to remote observe from overseas?
f) ATCA 12 mm phase jumps (raised by user)
A user
raised with ATUC some issues regarding large phase shifts with the 12mm
system. These are technical issues best
fed back to the ATNF via a fault report.
ATUC will pass the comments directly to the ATCA OiC.
ATNF response optional
g) Mopra
3mm focal plane array (raised by user)
A user
requested that ATUC consider the case for building a 3mm focal plane array for Mopra. ATUC felt
that this is not a feasible project at this point. Perhaps this idea should be
reassessed after experience with the (x)NTD focal
plane array development.
ATNF response optional
a) SETI receiver - any reason to resurrect it? (question from ATNF)
ATUC
were asked if there were any reasons to resurrect the SETI receiver for use at
Parkes. After ATUC discussion it was
decided that there were no reasons for doing this.
ATNF response optional
a) Do ATUC support changes to SCHED to allow easier archiving of ATCA data?
(question from ATNF.)
ATUC
were asked if they would support changes to the SCHED software to allow
improved support for the online ATCA data archive. ATUC are very happy to support these changes.
ATNF response optional
b) ToO policy and feedback
on ToO proposals (raised by users)
A group
of users expressed disappointment with the feedback they received from a target
of opportunity proposal that they submitted to the ATCA. The users felt that the comments and feedback
received back did not properly explain why the proposal was not accepted.
ATUC
request a clarification of the criteria by which Target of
Opportunity Proposals are assessed. In particular, what weight is given to
science and disruption to other users? ATUC request that the ATNF response include a description of the
criteria used for assessment and that these criteria be clearly stated on the
ATNF website pages describing the ToO proposal
process.
ATNF responses
required
Can the ATNF advise
ATUC as to the detailed criteria used to assess ToO
proposals?
Can the ATNF revise
the webpages on ToO
proposals to make clearer to users how their proposals are assessed i.e. what
weight is given to which criteria?
c) ATCA SCHED (raised by users)
Current
web links to SCHED information are confusing or outdated. ATUC would like the
web pages and information on the SCHED software to be tidied up. It should be made clear how to download the unix text-based version of SCHED. A single link to consolidated SCHED
information from the ATNF Telescope Documentation page would be very useful.
The
following information and comments were compiled from the ATNF web pages:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/vlbi/documentation/sched/node1.html
VLBI
help pages on sched, provides info on how to ftp most
recent (ca. 2004) SCHED program from NRAO, unclear as to whether this is the
same program to be used with ATCA, links are complete and information is helpful. Last updated 2003 .
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/software/on-line/user/sched/sched.html
Main ATNF node for SCHED info?
Information is complete, but no direct link to download the
software/access the online program.
Accessed from "terminal-based" link at the top level
"Observing" page, http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/observing/ . Last updated 1997.
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/observing/newsched.html
"web-based"
link from top level "Observing" page. Ironically it has a link to the
terminal-based program which appears to work (no information on the version
this is). Link to web-based applet (http://nelle.atnf.csiro.au/sched/SchedApplet.html)
does not work.
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/observing/users_guide/html/node58.html
SCHED section in ATCA user guide.
This node contains a different link to the web-based scheduler (http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/observing/sched/newsched.html)
which again is a dead link. (Also note
that to submit a fault report on http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/feedback/, a
username and password is required, preventing most users from actually sending
any feedback!)
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/observing/sched/NewSchedApplet.html
&
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/observing/sched/OldSchedApplet.html
These
are possibly the new and old sched applets,
respectively. I could get links to work
but applet did not come up functional (perhaps due to my computer). There are no direct links to these pages, I only found them through a search on the ATNF site.
ATNF responses
required
Will ATNF consolidate
and revise SCHED information on the web, providing a single high-level link to
this information for users?
d) Marsfield friend (raised by users)
Overseas
users who have requested a ‘friend’ should be encouraged to spend a couple of
days in Marsfield to meet their friend and plan observations. First time
overseas users should be encouraged to visit Marsfield in any case. This encouragement could be made when a user
is notified of the outcome of their proposal.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF adopt
the ATUC suggestion that overseas users who request friends be
encouraged to meet their friend before travelling to Narrabri?
e) Overseas representation on TAC (raised by users)
Given
that 40% of the ATCA time is allocated to overseas users, perhaps the ATNF
should consider appointing overseas representation to the TAC, similar to overseas
representation on ATUC?
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF consider
appointing overseas representatives to the TAC?
a) Archive of radio images (raised by users)
Users
suggested that more effort could be made in archiving radio images from ATNF
facilities. Images archived as a matter
of course when the ATCA pipeline data processing system comes on line will help
enormously in this effort. ATUC also
encourage the continued collection of “cool images” for display on the ATNF web
pages.
ATNF response optional
a) Does ATUC consider the proposed upgrade valuable? (question from ATNF)
Yes, as
stated before by ATUC, users do feel that this is a very valuable upgrade.
ATNF response optional
b) Does ATUC have any comments on the proposed frequency ranges of 1-3 GHz
and 4 – 12 GHz? (question from ATNF)
After
discussion, ATUC consider 1-3 GHz a higher priority than 4-12 GHz. The gap
between the two bands is not seen to be critical but the exact separation will
depend upon RFI considerations and the tradeoffs between bandwidth and
sensitivity. The 1-3 GHz upgrade will
help fix the low frequency polarisation problems at the ATCA.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATNF adopt
the ATUC suggestion that 1-3 GHz has a higher priority than 4- 12 GHz?
c) Does ATUC have any specific suggestions for items to be included in the
science case? (question from ATNF)
ATUC ask
the project scientist to look at the advantages of having the same system available
at Mopra. ATUC also ask the project scientist to
produce some example (u,v)
coverage plots to show the MFS effect for the ATCA using the broadband systems
ATNF responses
required
Will the project
scientist look at the advantages of the same system for Mopra
and provide example MFS (u,v)
coverages for the ATCA, showing the effect of the
broadband system?
d) Does ATUC have any comments on whether the possibility of new feedhorns should be pursued, keeping in mind that this
would significantly increase the cost and timescale of the project and that it
may not be possible to focus with the subreflector?
(question from ATNF)
ATUC
feel that this project is not feasible at the moment but may be considered as a
longer term possibility
ATNF response optional
e) Would ATUC be satisfied with the insertion of notch filters for RFI at
the price of an increase in the overall system temperature? (question from
ATNF)
This question
should be considered in conjunction with plans for RFI mitigation through the
CABB project and should be looked at after better knowledge of the RFI
environment at these frequencies is obtained.
ATNF responses
required
Will the ATCA
broadband backend and frontend projects consult over
the overall RFI mitigation strategies that will be implemented at the ATCA?
a) SKA site testing (raised by ATUC)
ATUC
strongly support the SKA siting program as outlined in the technology
development report. ATUC note the
conflict between current site testing plans and the SKA RFP.
ATNF response optional
b) Doubling of 6 GHz multibeam bandwidth to 600
MHz for pulsars (question from ATNF)
ATUC
were invited to comment on the need to double the methanol multibeam
bandwidth to 600 MHz, for use in pulsar observations. ATUC encourage the exploitation of the full 1
GHz bandwidth of the 6 GHz multibeam system. Doubling
the bandwidth to 600 MHz would greatly improve its continuum sensitivity.
ATNF responses
required
Will ATNF adopt ATUCs suggestion that the bandwidth on the methanol multibeam receiver be doubled to 600 MHz?
a) Comments on the NTD/xNTD plans? (raised by
ATUC)
ATUC are
encouraged by progress on the (x)NTD plan and its
context in the SKA Roadmap. ATUC look forward to future updates on the
evolution of the project plans. ATUC will organise a workshop addressing the (x)NTD science case sometime in the first quarter of 2005, in
conjunction with the project scientist.
ATNF responses
required
Will the planned NTD/xNTD science workshop be useful for the ATNF?
a) What priority does ATUC put on the broad-band eVLBI
fibre connections in the event that CSIRO do not fully fund the ‘last mile’
installation? (question from ATNF)
As
reported by ATUC at the last meeting, we consider eVLBI
to be a high priority. An answer to this question depends heavily on the dollar
figure involved. ATUC would like to
defer this question to the next meeting, when more information on the potential
costs of the fibre links is available.
ATNF response optional
a) Any initial comments on the new system? (question from ATNF)
ATUC
were asked if they have any initial comments on the planned electronic proposal
system. ATUC felt that an option for adding
all proposer contact information in the new forms would be a good idea. ATUC also felt that maintaining the current
system of emailing postscript versions of proposals would be a good idea, as a
backup system.
ATNF response optional
Meeting
closed 5.25.