ATUC Report to ATNF Director
ATUC meeting 15th and
Chair: Steven
Tingay
Secretary: Jim
Lovell
Meeting open at:
1)
Apologies
and attendance
Apologies: Joss Bland-Hawthorn, Brad Gibson
Attendance: Simon Ellingsen, Aidan Hotan, Maria Hunt, Simon
Johnston, Helmet Jurgen, Jim Lovell (Secretary), Naomi McClure-Griffiths,
Steven Tingay (Chair), Mark Wardle, Brad Warren, Tony Wong, Chris Wright
2)
Report
from last meeting
Motion: That the ATUC report from the November 2003 meeting be approved.
Moved Naomi McClure-Griffith, seconded Simon Johnston. Carried.
3)
Matters
arising from Director's response
a)
The
ATUC Chair recommends that items in future ATUC reports to the ATNF Director be
tagged with either “Response required from ATNF” or “response optional from
ATNF”
The Chair’s suggestion was endorsed by ATUC.
b)
Motion:
That the Director's response to the November 2003 ATUC report be accepted.
Moved Simon Ellingsen, seconded Aidan Hotan. Carried.
4)
ATUC
organisational matters
a)
ATUC
feedback from users/consultation reports
The Chair was happy with the way that the new feedback mechanisms
put in place since the last ATUC meeting have worked. ATUC had an unprecedented number of comments
back from users on a wide range of issues (evidenced by the number of items in
the Business Meeting agenda), notably from a number of overseas observers. Particularly useful were the “consultation
reports” supplied by the majority of ATUC members. The Chair encouraged those ATUC members who
didn’t supply reports to do so for the next meeting.
b)
Amendments
to terms of reference (ATUC term lengths)
The Chair proposed an amendment to the ATUC Terms of Reference,
clarifying term lengths for ATUC
members. This proposed change was
endorsed by ATUC. ATUC ask that the ATNF
Steering Committee endorse the addition of the following statement to the ATUC
Terms of Reference:
"The normal length of service for non-student members of ATUC
will be six meetings. Student members
will sit on ATUC for a maximum term of two meetings. ATUC members' terms will normally begin on 15
July. Variations to the length of
service of any ATUC member may be made at the discretion of the Australia
Telescope Steering Committee.”
Further, if the Director approves item 4e (below), the following
should also be added to the Terms of Reference:
"ATUC may have up to one member from the international
community whose length of membership lasts for a six month period, three months
either side of the meeting which they will be attending."
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
c)
ATUC
replacement for Simon Ellingsen
After almost two full terms (due to the fact that no other
representative from the
ATUC nominate Giuseppe Cimo (also from the
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
d)
Results
of ATUC review of ATNF projects
Before the June 2004 meeting, ATUC reviewed the projects currently
in the ATNF Projects Database according to established Terms of Reference. A summary of the results of the ATUC review
were presented at the June 2004 meeting by Naomi McClure-Griffith. A document describing the results of the ATUC
review will be forwarded to the ATNF Director by ATUC before the next ATUC
meeting.
ACTION ATUC
e)
International
user representation on ATUC
ATUC propose to nominate one person per year to the Steering Committee
from an overseas institution to attend one ATUC meeting per year as an overseas
representative. ATUC would undertake to
nominate appropriate candidate(s) for approval by the ATSC at least three
months prior to the meeting in question.
It would normally be expected that the overseas member would not require
support from the ATNF for international travel (i.e. that the overseas member
would be in
Action ATNF (response
required)
5)
Celebrating
success
We congratulate the ATNF on their achievements as follows, in no
particular order of significance:
a)
ATUC
congratulate the different teams that are demonstrating RFI mitigation techniques
at Parkes
b)
ATUC
congratulate all involved in the successful deployment and operation of the 12 mm
system at the ATCA. By all accounts it
is performing very well.
c)
ATUC
thank staff at the ATCA and Parkes for their support of the work that MNRF
partners of the ATNF are undertaking at the Observatories
d)
ATUC
congratulate the team that have developed and tested the new seeing monitor at
ATCA.
e)
ATUC
congratulate Tony Wong and the team involved in developing the on-the-fly
mapping capabilities at the Mopra telescope for their progress to date.
f)
ATUC
congratulate the Parkes Observatory staff for their highly successful support
of NASA Mars tracking, especially the "in-house" support efforts of
John Sarkissian and Stacey Mader.
g)
ATUC
congratulate Tasso Tzioumis, team, and collaborators for their rapid uptake of
e-VLBI opportunities. ATUC look forward
to the future success of this project.
h)
ATUC
congratulate the ATNF on their now long-standing policy of increasing the
science output of ATNF staff and the quality of the recent science highlights.
i)
ATUC
congratulate Jessica Chapman and the National Facility Office team for their efforts
in ATNF outreach programs.
j)
ATUC
congratulate Dave McConnell and the Project Masnagement team for the continued
progress on project management initiatives, including consolidation and update
of the Project Management database.
k)
ATUC
congratulate the engineering team responsible for the installation of the
l)
ATUC
congratulate the ATNF engineering team for the recent 3mm LNA results, in
particular the very promising performance that appears possible up to the 115
GHz frequency.
m)
ATUC
thank those responsible for improvements made to the Mopra manual; these
efforts are much appreciated.
6)
High
priority items for ATUC discussion
a)
Does
ATUC have any comments on the potential 7mm upgrade, in particular the impact
of NASA tracking requirements (4 - 8 hr/week in 2006 - 2013) on users (question
from ATNF) or the desire for a 26 - 50 GHz system in preference to a
narrow-band system? (raised by user)
ATUC recommend that ATNF base their negotiations with NASA on a
broad-band (26 – 50 GHZ) upgrade to the ATCA, in preference to a system that
only operates in the narrow Ka band required for spacecraft tracking.
ATUC note a conflict between the current scheduling arrangements
for the ATCA and the proposed NASA method of scheduling the potential 7mm
system for spacecraft tracking. The
NASA schedule would only be known 4 – 8 weeks in advance, while ATCA schedules
are produced for a period of six months at a time (note that the same problem
would occur for the old four month terms).
ATUC would like to be sure that scheduling of the 7mm system will not
significantly impact on astronomer usage of the ATCA. How would the ATNF
propose to deal with scheduling NASA tracking, given the mismatch in scheduling
timescales?
ATUC suggest that a science case be formulated sooner rather than
later so that we can provide input on detailed receiver specifications. Also, how will the development of the 7mm
system impact on other activities of the receiver group over the next few
years?
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
b)
Does
ATUC have any comments on how to optimally schedule winter time e.g. mm + cm
swaps, proposals deferred across semesters, separate ranking schemes for mm and
cm proposals, etc? (question from ATNF)
ATUC recommend that millimetre observing slots continue to be partnered
with centimetre observing slots or Director's Time (DT) to allow for swapping
if the weather is unsuitable for mm observing.
ATNF should seek to encourage more swappable centimetre projects
through
heavy promotion, including via the call for proposals. Furthermore, once the ATCA schedule has been
determined (including possible swaps), a separate announcement to the user
community advertising the availability of swappable DT could be made.
This announcement would include details of possible dates, LST ranges,
configuration, etc. for each slot and users would be encouraged to submit
requests to the Director. Applicants for swappable DT who are also duty
astronomer for the period requested should be given priority. If local or service
observing of an approved DT project proves difficult to arrange,
remote observing should be made available to both domestic and qualified overseas
observers.
ATNF response optional
c)
How
does ATUC rank the proposal to put 16 MHz filters on the 2nd IF for mm
observations? (question from user via Ott presentation)
ATUC rank this proposal very highly and recommend that ATNF
implement it as soon as possible to take maximum advantage of the 12 and 3 mm
systems prior to the CABB coming on-line.
It seems that this relatively simple and inexpensive project will
greatly enhance the efficiency and scientific usefulness of the ATCA for 12 and
3 mm observations.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
d)
Does
ATUC support the proposal for the Mopra Delta-quadrant survey or other
potential large Mopra projects (question
from ATNF)
ATUC endorse the Delta-quadrant survey as an appropriate use of
Mopra time, as recommended by ATUC in the November 2003 meeting. However, this, and other large projects, should
be reviewed by the TAC and, as is the case for large projects on other
instruments, the data should be made available to the wider community in a
timely manner. Hopefully the encouragement of this large project for Mopra will
prompt other teams to devise further large projects for Mopra.
ATNF response optional
e)
Does
ATUC support the straw man proposal for Mopra operations? (question from ATNF)
The restriction to observing April-November only is unacceptable
from a VLBI perspective. The LBA schedule is already severely constrained by
the availability of Tidbinbilla.
Blocking the use of Mopra from December to March would mean that any
large allocations of Tidbinbilla time during this period could not be
efficiently used. The future availability
of Mopra should not constrain LBA scheduling any more than it is currently.
The 25% community time may be too small and ATNF should consider
increasing it to between 25 and 50% depending on user demand. ATUC would not like
small users to be discouraged from applying for Mopra time, especially given the
recent closure of SEST.
ATUC strongly endorse the remaining points in the straw man model,
especially the aim for full remote observing by 2005.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
f)
ATUC
are concerned by the impact of increased RFI in the 50 cm band at Parkes over
the next two years (raised by ATUC)
ATUC see a strong need to move away from the currently used band
for the 10/50cm receiver due to increased RFI from digital TV transmissions.
ATUC request that the ATNF undertake a feasibility study to determine what resources
are required to modify or replace the existing 10/50cm system in order to
access relatively clear spectrum. Even if the 50 cm band is shifted, ATUC see
an ongoing need for RFI mitigation efforts at Parkes in the 50cm band. ATUC
request a report on this at the December 2004 ATUC meeting. Hopefully ATNF are now keeping an eye on the
frequencies of future digital TV transmitters, even when they are hundreds of
km from the Observatories, and planning the frequency ranges of future
receivers accordingly.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
g)
Does
ATUC have any input on the e-VLBI development as the future of Australian VLBI?
(question from ATNF)
ATUC recognise that the potential scientific and technical
benefits of eVLBI clearly identify these developments as the future of
Australian VLBI. ATUC endorse the project plan put forward subject to the
following points:
ATUC recommend that real-time correlation with the LBA correlator
(phase C of the project plan) be dropped from the project plan. The resources required to execute this part
of the plan are not justified in terms of the science return and the resources
will be better expended on other parts of the project.
ATUC recognises that the ultimate science case for e-VLBI requires
broadband receiver upgrades at Parkes as well as at all non-ATNF antennas. ATUC ask the ATNF to consider coordinating a
plan for the broad-band upgrade of these antennas to match the expected
performance of the ATCA and Mopra broad-band upgrade. ATUC note that the “MNRF-3-like” funding opportunity
expected for 2006 would be an appropriate and timely mechanism for supporting a
project of this size and complexity.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
h)
ATUC
is concerned by the number of negative comments it has recently received
regarding feedback on proposals submitted to the ATNF TAC (raised by
users)
ATUC received correspondence representing approximately 15 users
from both within
We would like the TAC to review its methods of generating comments
on proposals, with the aim of making the content more uniform across proposals and
a better reflection of the TAC process.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
i)
ATUC
would like to help the ATNF develop some criteria for the success of 6 month
terms (raised by users and ATUC) and ATUC have some suggestions for the
improvement of six month scheduling (raised by ATUC).
Several criteria for the success of 6 month terms were discussed
by ATUC. Basically the success or
otherwise of 6 month terms will be very difficult to measure quantitatively as
it is only one of a number of variables that affect proposal statistics. However, it is worth attempting to track the
following statistics (some of these are already tracked). Six month terms should be considered a
success if:
·
Publication
rates from ATNF telescopes rise or remain constant (very difficult to track the
effects of one variable in this);
·
The
total time awarded to proposals for which the PhD “yes” box is checked rises or
remains constant (an interesting statistic to track student participation);
·
The
oversubscription rates rise or stay constant
(again difficult to quantify in terms of one variable);
·
VLBI
usage of highly constrained antennas such as Tidbinbilla increases or remains
constant (should be a relatively straightforward measurement to make and
interpret);
·
Administrative
load on the ATNF and the TAC is decreased.
Total person hours spent on TAC matters should decrease;
·
Users
are satisfied. ATUC will survey users
after the first full 6 month term to assess their level of satisfaction with 6
month terms.
`ATUC also have some suggestions for improved implementation of 6
month terms.
ATUC suggest the scheduling of clearly identified pilot projects
early in the term to give investigators the maximum opportunity to propose for
the major observing program in the following semester. Similarly, for proposals
identifying PhD projects, scheduling early in the semester would give PhD
students the maximum chance to obtain data for their theses.
ATUC suggest that a category of
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
j)
Does
ATUC have any input on the new NTD plan, in particular does ATUC endorse the
change of direction for the NTD project? (question from ATNF)
ATUC endorse what appears to be a very sensible plan for
evaluating a number of different technology options on a feasible timescale,
underpinned by the developments to date in terms of radio quiet reserves in
ATUC request that ATNF look at the possibility of pushing the
upper frequency limit of the NTD as high as possible. In particular, if the
upper frequency can be pushed to 1.7 GHz, the NTD can co-observe with the
Tidbinbilla 70m antenna, all of the ATNF antennas, and
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
k)
Does
ATUC have any suggestions for what the science requirements of ATCA broad-band
correlator should be? (question from ATNF)
ATUC propose, in conjunction with the CABB project scientist and
project manager to convene a one-day workshop on the science requirements of
the CABB project, including the coverage of:
a)
cost/effort-neutral
tradeoffs in specifications;
b)
correlation
of data from other antennas;
c)
scientific
applications for the ATCA
The meeting will likely be arranged for September.
ACTION ATUC
7)
Does
ATUC have any comments on the 2004/05 Divisional plan? (question from ATNF)
ATUC fully endorse the 2004/05 ATNF Divisional plan.
8)
TAC
issues
a)
Request
for policy on data sharing (raised by user)
What is the ATNF policy on sharing data for observations of the
same source, at the same time, using the same telescope, but sharing the IF
signal to feed completely different sets of instrumentation? For example, at Parkes one user may request
an observation of a pulsar with CPSR2 while another may wish to observe the
same object with WBCORR.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
b)
Does
ATUC have any comments on the proposed electronic proposal submission at this
point, given that further details will be distributed to ATUC before the next
meeting? (question from ATNF)
ATUC would like to see the LaTeX cover sheet format be kept as
part of the printable proposal and the basis for web submission. ATUC would not like to see a complicated web
form that users have to fill in while online.
ATUC suggest that ATNF look at the Mt Stromlo electronic proposal
submission procedure as a good model. See http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/TAC/applying.html
. The Mt Stromlo submission process is
apparently derived from the corresponding AAO submission process.
ATUC expect that the move to electronic submission of proposals will
reduce the time required for the proposal review process.
ATNF response optional
c)
Does
ATUC have any comment on the apparent decrease in ATNF usage by non-ATNF
Australian astronomers? (question from ATNF)
ATUC propose to look into the causes of this apparent decrease
within Australian universities and aim to report on its findings.
ACTION ATUC
9)
ATCA
issues
a)
ATCA
users guide (raised by user)
A user has requested that the following “local folklore” be
documented in the Users’ Guide:
a)
What
are typical calibrator duty cycles for different weather conditions?
b)
How
common are DC offsets and how are they recognized?
c)
How
close and how strong should a secondary calibrator source be to a target?
d)
Should
averaging be used?
e)
What
is the best way to set delays for narrow-band observations?
f)
What
are typical integration times for mosaic observations?
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
b)
13
cm polarisation (raised by user)
Users would like to see 13cm polarization performance improved.
This should be done as part of the broadband upgrade. Is this possible?
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
c)
Does
ATUC have any comment on the continued use of overseas remote observers?
(question from ATNF)
ATUC think that the trial of overseas remote observing has been
successful and that overseas remote observing should take place on an ongoing
basis, subject to existing policies regarding the total amount of time
available for remote observing.
ATNF response optional
d)
New
ATLOD version in Miriad (raised by ATUC)
ATUC request all ATCA users are notified of the new version of
ATLOD that will be required for ATCA 12 mm observations and any other future
important MIRIAD upgrades. This may be
best done via the “Call for Proposals” email exploder.
ATNF response optional
e)
Does
ATUC have any comments on how to further refine the 12 mm system? (question
from ATNF)
Not at this point. The 12mm system appears to working extremely
well.
ATNF response optional
10)
Mopra
issues
a)
What
can ATUC do to engage the community in Mopra usage? (question from ATNF)
ATUC do not have much comment on this beyond what has been said at
previous ATUC meetings. As stated in
item 6d, above, ATUC think that the emergence of a large science project for
Mopra is positive. ATUC is happy where
possible to promote the use of Mopra but feel that the ATNF need to advertise
Mopra more heavily in the Call for Proposals.
ATUC also feel that further engagement of international community
would be beneficial, especially as a pathfinder for
ATNF response optional
b)
User
facilities (raised by user)
ATUC request that the ATNF review the quality of observer
accommodation at Mopra, given that the cost per night is comparable to the lodge
at the ATCA. ATUC recognize that
accommodation costs at Narrabri benefit by economy of scale. However, making Mopra as attractive as possible
to observers may also encourage more users.
Perhaps if making extra facilities available is not possible, a
reduction in the accommodation cost may be possible.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
11)
Parkes issues
a)
Higher
level links to proposal tools on Parkes web site (raised by user)
A user has requested a higher level link on the ATNF web pages to
proposal and observation preparation tools that are available on the Parkes web
page.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
b)
Does
ATUC have any comments on the development plans for the pulsar archive?
(question from ATNF)
ATUC think that the recommendations look good but ask, how does
the ATNF plan to archive past data collected at Parkes? For example, the only copy of datasets taken
during a period of many years now resides on tapes owned by individual users
and distributed around the world.
ATUC suggest that future Parkes data should be archived at the
observatory as a matter of course.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
c)
Multi-beam
refurbishment (raised by user)
ATUC thank John Reynolds for the receiver status report with
timescales. By the next observing
deadline ATUC would like to know the schedule for receivers that will be
operational at Parkes (similar to the announcement of the configurations
planned ahead of time for the ATCA) over the duration of the next two semesters.
This information should be included in subsequent calls for proposals.
ATUC will consult with users as to the best date for phase 2 of
the 21cm multi-beam receiver refurbishment, since the schedule for this is
somewhat flexible.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
12)
Tidbinbilla/Canberra
issues
a)
Subsidised accommodation in
Currently ATNF-co-supervised students that stay in ATNF accommodation
at Marsfield (to visit supervisors) or the Observatories pay no accommodation
costs. There is no such arrangement for
ATNF-co-supervised students visiting ATNF supervisors in
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
13)
LBA issues
a)
Upgrade
of VLBI pages (raised by user)
A user has requested that the most important LBA web pages kept up
to date, these being:
a)
Documentation
pages describing system parameters;
b)
Available
frequencies;
c)
Proposal
status;
d)
Standard
observing modes available
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
14)
Software
issues
a)
Does
ATUC have any feedback on the ATCA archive data model? (question from ATNF)
ATUC thanks Tara Murphy for her efforts on the ATCA archive and
pipeline and encourages users to continue providing feedback on this new
development. ATUC do not have any specific comments on the data model at this
stage.
ATNF response optional
b)
Does
ATUC have any comments on meta-data coherence over pulsar/ATCA/Parkes data
archive efforts? (question from ATNF)
As a matter of course ATUC would like to see all archives
presented to users in the most consistent format possible.
ATNF response optional
c)
SPC
replacement software (raised by ATUC)
ATUC are very encouraged by the concrete progress toward the SPC
replacement software and look forward to more substantial progress before the
next ATUC meeting
ATNF response optional
d)
Would
ATUC like to see the RVS (Remote Visualisation Server) software effort expanded?
(question from ATNF)
ATUC would like to see evidence that this will be a unique and widely
used product before endorsing significant expansion of this project.
ACTION ATNF (response
required)
15)
Technology
development issues
a)
Does
ATUC have any comments on how to move forward with 3/12 mm focal plane arrays
for Parkes/Mopra? (question from ATNF)
ATUC support focal plane developments in the 3 or 12mm bands. A 3/12 mm focal plane array for Parkes/Mopra
would be more use to the user community than a 4-8 GHz focal plane array as
proposed for PHAROS. Future discussion should focus on a 3/12mm system. A 12mm
system would be best suited to Parkes while a 3mm system would seem to be best
for Mopra. ATUC have no specific
comments on how the ATNF should move forward with this project at the moment.
ATNF response optional
b)
Does
ATUC have any comments on the development of the methanol multi-beam receiver.
(question from ATNF)
ATUC urge ATNF to complete the development of this system so that the
science can begin.
ATNF response optional
C) Can ATUC rank the 5 largest ATNF projects that will take the
largest share of ATNF resources and effort over the next 2 to 3 years, these
being: CABB, NTD, eVLBI, the 7mm system for the ATCA, and the methanol
multi-beam receiver? (question from ATNF)
ATUC ranked the importance of these
projects to the ATNF and its user community as follows:
1. CABB (Compact Array Broadband Backend)
2. NTD (New Technology Demonstrator)
3. Methanol Multi-beam
4. eVLBI
5. ATCA 7mm system
ATUC recognized that the CABB and NTD are
integral to the success of the contracted work under the MNRF program and
therefore of the highest priority – CABB is more likely to be directly
important for users and has the highest priority. The Methanol Multi-beam was recognized as a
large project that is currently underway with a need to be pushed to completion
in order to service what appears to be a strong user community. e-VLBI was seen as a high value project with
good potential outcomes from modest effort and expenditure in the short term,
which gives it a lower priority over at least the next 12 months. Finally, the 7 mm system is seen as a very
important development for the ATNF but in the context of the next major project
to be undertaken once the four higher priority projects have attained further
progress.
ATNF response optional
Meeting close:
17:08