MMA Advisory Committee Report, Nov 1994

 
The Advisory Committee had a brief session at the end of the
recent meeting in Socorro and produced the following items:

1. We endorse the formation of the MMA Development Consortium (MDC).
We see it as an important step toward a more consultative mode for 
NRAO in the development of the MMA.

2. We would like to see this more consultative mode extended to the
MMA Advisory Committee (MAC, on the theory that we can't be taken
seriously without an embedded acronym). We would like to be made aware
of the agenda for meetings of the MDC Executive Committee and the
significant results of these meetings.

3. If the MMA development proceeds as it is currently envisioned,
we believe that a new Science Workshop should be convened in 1995.
We are willing to help in the scientific organization of this
workshop. We also would be willing to assess the results of the
workshop in terms of the scientific value of different capabilities.

4. We believe that the workshop should not start from scratch as
previous workshops did. Instead, two broad questions should be addressed:
a. What developments in the intervening years have changed the nature
or importance of the science proposed in the last workshop?
b. How strong is the scientific case for capabilities that are
driving the design in difficult directions? 

5. To address the second question in #4, the workshop should consider specific 
tradeoffs or requirements driving the design, which are defined by the ongoing 
design study. Issues which we identified are as follows:
a. The rationale for solar observations.
b. Low frequency (less than 70GHz) observations.
c. High frequency (greater than 400 GHz) observations.
d. Resolution times bandwith for the correlator (how many channels needed
    at highest bandwidths?).
e. Need for baselines greater than 1 km.
f. Southern hemisphere versus northern hemisphere science.
g. Large mosaics with many pixels.

The above points were specifically agreed to by the members of the 
advisory committee. Other comments were made by one or more people, either
at the meeting or by email response to the first draft. These are 
not necessarily agreed to by everyone. I have tried to indicate the
degree of agreement by listing them in order of how many people
mentioned them.

1. There was broad support for the notion that the MAC should serve as
the mechanism for involving the broader astronomical community in the
planning, design, and oversight of the project. We would like to work
with NRAO on planning the agenda of future MAC meetings. We are also
willing to consult on the complex question of site selection,
particularly in weighing the impact of the choice of site on the scientific
potential of the MMA. The Science Workshop should also consider this issue
before any final decision is made. Our committee is also willing to
serve as the science "watchdog", helping to set priorities and 
making sure that important scientific capabilities aren't eliminated 
without a compelling reason as the project proceeds.

2. Most people agreed with the proposition that the bread and butter of 
the MMA will be at frequencies from 200-370 GHz.

3. Someone noted that we should be aware that things we can't imagine 
doing now (e.g., large mosaics) may still be useful capabilities, even
though most did not believe that such  capabilities should be  major
drivers at this point. This issue should be addressed by the Science
Workshop.

4. While most of us favored a science workshop focused on new developments
and tradeoffs, there was some sentiment for a more open workshop, on the
theory that we need the broadest possible involvement and support by
the millimeter community.

5. There may be a need for support for relevant theory efforts.
This issue should also be addressed by the Science Workshop.

 
Summarized by Neal Evans