ASAC 14 December 2005

Wootten, Turner, Emerson, Chris, Kawabe, Testi, Schilke, Tarenghi, van Dishoeck,
Laing, Beasley, Cox. Wilson

Minutes posted from previous meeting.

Calendar very little time between Jan Board meeting and ASAC meeting.

Project Update:  MT: Project Scientist candidate did not accept; the position
will be readvertised.  Please encourage candidates to apply; we will try to
get younger people to increase the possibility.  Much work on rebaselining--the
activity with highest priority, displacing other commitments.  We have the first
integrated schedule.  In February there will be much to be discussed in this
respect.  Antenna procurement is related of course.  We have failed to place the
contract this month as forseen for a number of reasons put forth by Executives and
also since we needed additional work to understand the prototypes before final
negotiations.  Beasley is leading this testing round.  Approach is concentrate on
fundamental tests; certainty is a goal.  We want to be sure that what we order 
fulfills the project requirements.  We do not intend to change technical specs which
we have used so far.  There is a financial problem--if we have to reduce the number
we must do this, but in such a way as to finally reach our goal of 32 + 32.
PC: What is the current timescale?  MT: Tests cannot be completed in less than two
months.  Then we should be able to understand the major technical risks and remove them.
The AEG report is in, and we are studying this.  We need to understand it, it has
a number of measurements but there are some which were not made and some which need
further exploration.  EvD: Is PS position now being taken up by Wootten and Wilson.
MT: The Board has approved that the two will act as interim PS.  This isn't really
new, but it is important.  When the JAO needs help, they immediately make requests
of Wootten and Wilson.  TB: Somewhere around Feb there will be a situation in which
IPTs have identified options for rescope.  This will be discussed with scientists
and with the ASAC at that time.  PC: How many PS candidates have been considered?
MT: About six have been extensively interviewed--all are very good.  There is usually
some difficulty which has prevented them taking the job.  We have a nice office now.
MT left to take part in an interview.

CW: Will you talk more about rebaselining?  Will we have information a few weeks before
we meet?  TB: We have put together tools for this--I sent out the final package just
a few minutes ago.  Most IPTs if they re-estimate budget will probably not differ much
from what it was before.  We are looking for hidden scope--something which is not within
the sumof the IPT scopes.  One IPT thought the other was doing X and it wasn't.
Each IPT will deliver statements clearly identifying what they think they are doing for
the project.  I have also asked for 10% rescope options.  This way we will be able to
examine a cost return curve.  Some things will have little science implications.  One
that is emerging is that if we decide at first light we will only support on IF and
support the other later in the project that will save $9M.  This would be two antennas.
This is the sort of tradeoff we may wish to discuss with the ASAC.  We will have the
information by late February but we may not have separated the wheat from the chaff by
then.

TB: There is the overarching issue of the antennas.  Missing the 15 Dec opportunity is
a disappointment.  If the ASAC were to look at the schedule--first antenna is available
18 months after signing.  Ten months after that is next, then every 31 days until the
antenna number is reached.  This is the shortest timescale from any vendor quote.  There
are longer options--20-25 months after contract.  

CW: IMportant to try to find out from the Board what they are thinking of having us do
for the end of Feb.  I'm worried that we'll have nothing to talk about, which would
be a waste of time.  

TB: Another aspect of science input is also important.  As an outcome of rebaselining
there will be changes to the project including perhaps a reduction in the number of 
antennas.  In the various communities the revised project may have to be rejustified.
This will almost certainly be the case in NA, and perhaps in other venues also.
There is a situation coming in a few months for which we will need a powerful set of
arguments supporting the rebaselined project.  Documents which state that 64 is absolutely
the minimum will not be helpful.  The ASAC may have to take the lead on this.

JT: Good point.  I was just at a meeting of the CAA at which van Citters said that the
next meeting would be devoted to the charge of reconsidering ALMA in the light of
project changes.  The meeting is not scheduled yet but would be March or early April,
depending on the timeliness of the question.  The ALMA Board meeting is 5-6 April.
TB: It will be important to show unity.  If half say we need high frequencies, and half
say we need collecting area, then this dissension will not be good.  
JT: We will need more information--some of us knew more than others.  We need to know the
numbers.
TB: I have to say that at the last meeting I could see you grappling with issues and ranges
of number that I knew were not on the table.  The information restrictions in the project
have made this very difficult.  We must get the ASAC complete access to all information
in my opinion.  
JT:  van Citters mentioned a range of N to the CAA but it is not satisfactory that the ASAC
cannot know this information.  I will mention this in the communication to Ian.  Some Board
members do not know much more than we do.

LT: Leaves for a train.

All:  Need to contact Board to make sure Chair and vice Chair are invited to telecons.

Face-to-face meeting:  Settled for 24-25 Feb in Garching.  JT will communicate with Ian
and ask for as much info as possible to be effective.  

CW: We could push the Board a little.  Will they not have signed a contract by the end of
Feb? EvD: They will not have done that.  They will need a month after all tests.
CW: It will still be fairly late--we will have some input.  We should push for
as much as possible for rebaselining.  For instance, the single IF deployment early on
poses interesting possibilities.  CW will ask JH for draft charges.  JT: We did say that
10% would not change the science case very much.  PS: Several Board members expressed
surprise that the ASAC had no more information than they did.  LGM had a good estimate
of the antenna cost.  PS The ballpark number must be about $4M, or between $4 and $5M per
antenna.  JT will try to talk about this with NA Executives.  We cannot really progress
without more information--officially, not via rumors from different sources.
JT will pressure Executives for information.  EvD will seek some pressure on PvdK also.

Science IPT items.  Al discusses rebaselining and CSV items.  

ESAC telecon discussed antennas, but focussed on the expressions of interest for the ARSCs
in Europe.  Deadline was 31 oCT; 7 responses received from countries or groups of countries
so this suggests enthusiasm in the community.  Each proposal was accompanied by a willingness
to fund statement from a funding agency.  This embarrassment of riches will take a while
to sort through.  Tom Wilson is organizing a meeting in late January of the responders.
ESO will advertise for the ARC manager.  Someone with experience in radio interferometry and
coordination of people is being sought.  

ANASAC has not had much activity.  Organizing the Town Meeting at the AAS has taken
priority.  New brochure will be passed out.  This is available at the ANASAC wiki page.

Pan-ALMA Science meeting.  JT did say thanks we will consider.  We can discuss this at the
face-to-face meeting.  We should do homework for that meeting.  Can we settle on dates?
The proposal was for Spring.  Is this optimal?  How long?  A subcommittee to consider this
might be useful?  Volunteers for a chair--a European--Carilli will serve.  

We might want to consider Fall--that would be close to when the antennas might actually arrive.
EvD: 2005 was too early.  The subcommittee should make recommendations.

Telecon time acceptable to all?  Next meeting 4 January.  JT will get information on charges
and prod the Baord to get information.  The subcommittee on the meeting will report.

Kawabe:  2005 budget request going well.  12m antenna bidding closed end of this month;
evaluation of bids early next year.  New staff hired as ALMA-J Instrument Scientist from
Steward Observatory.  Last face-to-face meeting with ASIA-A in Taiwan also occurred.
Fifth--internal ALMA-J science workshop with the JP community was held in November.
Reviewd ARC in JP, ASIA-A people attended.  We have formed a committee to discuss
items such as next new ASAC members, and so on.

Telecon closed with Merry Christmas!