Re: ATUC contributions
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
From: <Jim.Lovell_at_email.protected>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:15:29 +1100
Hi Chris,
I don't really have any big problems with the proposed plans, except for one thing…
A big sensitive antenna in the south is important for maintenance and enhancement of the ICRF, upon which we depend (even in the GAIA era) for astrometry, geodesy and spacecraft navigation. The long term strategy doesn't include a receiver that simultaneously covers ~2-12 GHz which is necessary for this work now and into the future (as it follows the IVS's VLBI2010 specifications). Simultaneous access to the low and high frequency ends of the band is necessary to make the ionospheric correction and get good source positions.
A caveat is that the Tid 70m could do this job too, but we'd need much better access. If that can be guaranteed (JPL want a good reference frame too) then the need for 2-12 GHz at Parkes is diminished.
Cheers,
Jim
On 09/02/2012, at 9:48 AM, Chris.Phillips_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au wrote:
>Hi all
>
>I have not heard from anybody from the VLBI community wrt the Parkes instrumentation changes and I don't believe Hayley has either. If you have concerns about how the receiver rationalisation may affect VLBI please put those concerns in writing to Hayley or me before lunch time tomorrow (Friday, Sydney time).
>
>Currently is seems no-one in the VLBI community is worried about the changes and ATUC will have to report that fact.....
>
>Cheers
>Chris
Received on 2012-02-09 10:15:54
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:15:29 +1100
Hi Chris,
I don't really have any big problems with the proposed plans, except for one thing…
A big sensitive antenna in the south is important for maintenance and enhancement of the ICRF, upon which we depend (even in the GAIA era) for astrometry, geodesy and spacecraft navigation. The long term strategy doesn't include a receiver that simultaneously covers ~2-12 GHz which is necessary for this work now and into the future (as it follows the IVS's VLBI2010 specifications). Simultaneous access to the low and high frequency ends of the band is necessary to make the ionospheric correction and get good source positions.
A caveat is that the Tid 70m could do this job too, but we'd need much better access. If that can be guaranteed (JPL want a good reference frame too) then the need for 2-12 GHz at Parkes is diminished.
Cheers,
Jim
On 09/02/2012, at 9:48 AM, Chris.Phillips_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au wrote:
>Hi all
>
>I have not heard from anybody from the VLBI community wrt the Parkes instrumentation changes and I don't believe Hayley has either. If you have concerns about how the receiver rationalisation may affect VLBI please put those concerns in writing to Hayley or me before lunch time tomorrow (Friday, Sydney time).
>
>Currently is seems no-one in the VLBI community is worried about the changes and ATUC will have to report that fact.....
>
>Cheers
>Chris
Received on 2012-02-09 10:15:54