Minutes 7th Meeting of the

International Square Kilometre Array Steering Committee

Instituto di Radioastronomia, CNR 17-18 January 2002

Draft: 5 March 2002 ISSC Members Present: Australia Ron Ekers

Wim Brouw CSIRO CSIRO

Canada Sean Dougherty1 Russ Taylor

University of Calgary University of Calgary

Europe Arnold van Ardenne Harvey Butcher Phil Diamond Franco Mantovani Peter Wilkinson Anton Zensus

ASTRON ASTRON MERLIN/Jodrell Bank Observatory IRA Jodrell Bank Observatory Max Plank Institut fur Radioastronomie

USA Bernie Burke Bryan Gaensler2 Bob Preston Ken Kellermann Yervant Terzian Jack Welch

MIT Harvard-Smithsonian CfA JPL/Caltech National Radio Astronomy Observatory Cornell University University of California, Berkeley

At Large Richard Schilizzi JIVE 1 substitute for Peter Dewdney, 2 substitute for Jill Tarter Observers: Jim Cordes Cornell University Rustam Dagkesamanskii Astro Space Centre, Russia Hisashi Hirabayashi ISAS, Japan Justin Jonas Rhodes University, South Africa Susan Mckenna Lawlor Birr Institute, Ireland 1. Approval of the Agenda

Page 1 of 21

The following modifications to the agenda were approved. Kellermann will lead item 10 discussion. Terzian will report under 3f. Items 3d, 3e are removed Add report of Science Workshop after 8. Add a report on the EVLA by Kellermann under 13d. Move item 13 to after lunch Items 7 and 8 are merged. Subject to these modifications the agenda was unanimously approved 2. Approval of the Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the ISSC Motion to approve was moved by Taylor second by Terzian. Minutes approved with no objections. 3. Regional Reports on R&D and Political Activities a) Australia (Brouw) A grant of $23 M AU has been awarded from government over 5 years for new developments. Half is for radio astronomy. In total there is about $12 M USD for SKA developments, including matching funds. Close cooperation with industry required for this program. A structure of committees is being set up, and a responsible body to sign a contract with government on how money will be spent. An astronomical board of management is in place, with the SKA consortium as a subcommittee. The university sector, CSIRO and industry are represented. SKA work focuses on development of designs of SKA prototypes to be built from these funds. There are four streams:

1. An SKA demonstrator in Narrabri comprised of two elements of 15 m diameter based on Luneberg lenses, or planar array in cooperation with ASTRON. The demonstrator will have four independently pointable beams. The target timeline for completion of the demonstrator is the end of 2004.

2. Upgrade the Molonglo telescope to explore cylindrical telescope as SKA elements. At least two beams will be implemented.

3. New correlators under development for both 1) and 2) 4. Site studies. Studies continue in Western Australia on RFI monitoring. A

more elaborate set of measurements will begin in 2003. Three other states, Southern Australia, NSW and Queensland, have also expressed interest in siting the SKA. The central government will coordinate discussions.

An outreach plan is also being proposed. Antenna, receiver and software are to be sent to high schools to measure radio spectrum and compare results from school to school. One aim is to raise awareness of the radio spectrum as an environmental

Page 2 of 21

resource. A Russian commercial Luneberg lens is undergoing testing. Melbourne supercomputer group is working on an SKA simulator. Brouw notes Jan 22 is the deadline for abstracts to Maastricht URSI meeting . Action to van Ardenne: circulate a program of the URSI meeting to ISSC members. Action to Ekers, Schilizzi and Kellermann: facilitate a Joint Discussion Group on Future Large Facilities at the Sydney IAU GA in 2003. b) Canada (Taylor) Funding for the Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy was announced after the December Federal 2001 budget. The SKA developments fall under two elements of the plan.

1. The North American Partnership for Radio Astronomy (NAPRA), a program to be funded at a level of about $50 M CA. Consisting of two funding components.

o $29 M CA through CFI application to University of Calgary (results will be announced in May 2002), consisting of $24 M CA for the EVLA correlator (technology demonstrator for SKA correlator technology and CLAR phase array feed spectrometer - WIDAR) and $5 M CA for ALMA.

o $24 M funded through NRC (secure but contingent on CFI funds) for capital contributions to ALMA.

2. Developments for the Large Adaptive Reflector. About $4 M CA over the next 2-3 years.

LAR developments will proceed on several fronts in a partnership between the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics and several university departments. A 1/3 scale balloon test facility is very nearly completed. First flight tests of the balloon and measurements of the open loop behaviour of triple tether system will take place this winter. A contract for a detailed design of the actuated reflector surface will be let to an industrial form (AMEC Dynamic Systems). c) Europe (Butcher) A generic SKA presentation has been developed by Wilkinson. An EUSKA web site now under development. The Medium term program of the EU-RadioNet and European Network for Radio Astronomy is under discussion with the EU. Elements of the program include:

Page 3 of 21

• e-VLBI, to connect all EVN telescopes with fibre link at 1Gbyte/s. First tests will occur this year.

• ALMA preparation • SKA planning and design. No significant R&D funds yet. • Evolve EVN into a European Council for Radio Astronomy.

European SKA Workshops

• High Resolution Imaging workshop 10-11 December at Bonn • Workshop proposed in Groningen before Maastricht

Significant R&D is underway. Programs include FARADAY, COBRA, HTSC FRI, and fibre data transport. THEA is operational, and is sited in tent at Dwingeloo with a 32 Gbit link to the main building. THEA will have 16 beams and tests are planned of pointing and sidelobe manipulations without modifying the shape of the primary beams. Software demonstration has been completed. Implementation in hardware is the next step. LOFAR A brochure has been published and a unified web site is in place. The science specifications are under review. Funding is in place to the PDF (1Q 2003) about 12 M eu. On the organizational side an engineering consortium is in place with ASTRON, MIT/Haystack and NRL. A science consortium board has been established with broad representation. New members are welcome. New science projects are vetted and, effect on design and financing assessed. Butcher suggests Euro might be a good currency standard for the SKA project. Discussion ensued with varying opinions expressed. No conclusion was arrived at. d) India no report e) China no report f) United States (Terzian) US SKA Consortium is working on defining what to propose to NSF. The proposal will be based on large-N array of small parabaloids. An outreach session was held at the recent AAS meeting in Washington. The major effort was work on a roadmap for the NSF which resulted in a proposal to the NSF from Cornell University with Jim Cordes as PI. . The proposal was submitted to the Advanced Technology in Instrumentation program at NSF in August, and involves 11 institutions. The proposal includes programs within the US SKA

Page 4 of 21

Consortium institutes to develop technologies. The proposal requests $5M over three years. An informal response indicates $1.5 to $3 M over three years will be provided, with 0.5 M in first year. Key elements for high priority actions to lead to design concept to match the international timeline will be discussed. US will use these funds to help fund the international project director position. Funds will be available in July. JPL, DSN and NASA are interested in large array technology for deep space communications. For many reasons this technology is well matched to needs of the DSN. NASA has put 1M into a “DSN initiative” and has asked JPL to produce a plan for funding starting in 2003 for a 6-year project to build a test array equivalent to 70 m antenna collecting area with S and K band (8 and 32 GHz) receive only. The array would be transferred to DSN operations in 2009. Sandy Weinreb is working on this project. Planning and systems engineering has begun this year. JPL is interested in ensuring the array is compatible with SKA. Substantial effort in addition to that in the NSF proposal, including the NRAO EVLA, which is considered part of the US SKA development, antennas at NAIC, and work at JPL, Haystack, Berkeley, SETI etc.. The US SKA Consortium is considering initiative to train graduate students. We should include graduate students in SKA workshops. Issues related to siting the SKA in the Southwest in relation to the EVLA are under study. Butcher notes that there have been contacts at ESA regarding Deep Space requirements. Ekers suggests the ISSC send a letter to IACG noting the international cooperation on SKA technology. Contacts between EU SKA consortium and European DSN community should be established. Action to Butcher: contact the appropriate DSN organization in Europe including space agencies and planetary science community. Action to Hirabayashi: contact the corresponding appropriate bodies in Japan 4. Reports from Observers a) Japan (H. Hirabayashi) The SKA was discussed on two occasions in Japan. The SKA was reported at a Radio Astronomy symposium, followed by a 30 minute discussion. Japan is interested in tracking the SKA activity. The SKA was also presented to the division of radio astronomy to NAO. It was agreed to continue contact with the SKA project. Japan will send people to meetings and join the ISSC in the future. Japan will be joining ALMA as next major project. Inoue as the URSI J rep will be the proper person to liaise to ISSC. Hirabayashi represents Japan for this meeting. Brouw and Kellermann point out that ALMA is an issue for all members. Major

Page 5 of 21

construction funds for the SKA are not needed this decade. Thus ALMA participation should not be considered an impediment to joining the SKA consortium. b) Russia (Roustam Dagkessamanski) Russian activity in the SKA project started at the Green Bank SKA meeting, where Kardashev presented talk about Luneberg Lenses. Russian private industry has the capability to produce Luneburg lenses and has delivered a 90-cm lens to CSIRO. Russia will continue our activity in this field and is considering the possibility to construct a Luneberg Lens of 10 to15 m diameter. Rough estimate suggests Luneberg lenses can operate from 0.15 to 1.4GHz. Design of a prototype is planned to be completed by the end of 2002. Funds are being sought to construct a prototype in Puschino. Many Russian scientists are interested in SKA Scientific program, and would like to participate in the discussion of science planning. There is a team at Puschino carrying out low frequency pulsar observations (100 to 300 MHz). There is also interested in RFI mitigation technologies. At Puschino there is a large phased array operating at 100 MHz. Two independent beams have been implemented. Tests of multi-beaming observations can be carried out at Puschino. At the end of last year the Russian Academy of Science designated the Astro Space Centre as lead institute for SKA participation. Dagkessamanski will contact the Russian space agency regarding DSN applications. Terzian notes there is interest from Armenia in the SKA project. Action: Taylor to will invite Paris Herouni to attend the next ISSC meeting as an observer. Yervant to provide contact information to Taylor c) South Africa (Justin Jonas) A report on the SKA was written to NRF after the Berkeley meeting. The report was distributed to URSI and IAU committee members in South Africa. The NRF supported continued attendance at ISSC meetings. The report also went to the Northern Cape government and was well received. They are already aware of OECD initiative. The SKA fits well into the South African national strategy for science. The southern sky is seen as a strategic resource, and South Africa is considered an international astronomy site. Jonas and others plan to convene a South African SKA working group. South Africa will prepare a business plan and seek funding for participation in international organization and for site evaluation costs in Northern Cape. In 2003 South Africa will prepare a national program for astronomy and space science for joint graduate programs among universities. Model for SALT participation could be a model for South African involvement in the SKA. South Africa would like to be involved as full participating partner, not just a passive host (the so-called “Chile option”).

Page 6 of 21

5. New members of the SKA Consortium Brouw reviewed the proposal discussed at last meeting. The proposal designated three longitudinal regions North American, European/SA and Asian, with new members joining one of these blocks. Terzian suggested an alternate model in which all parties are represented proportional to contribution to project. Funding agencies may request this. Burke pointed out that current division is based on expectation of contribution in construction phase rather than current allocations of funds. Preston cautions that if total membership numbers is fixed then there may be lack of representation of some consortium members. Burke added that longitude is not a rational criterion for blocks of participation and suggests we add members by vote of the current ISSC. Hirabayashi noted that SKA is a global project as opposed to ALMA with three blocks. There may not be a need yet for a bureaucratic division of regions. An imperative is that we should be inclusive. There was general agreement to this in principle. It might be a benefit to countries that wish to participate if they are members of the ISSC. It was decided to delay a decision on this until the European consortium discusses the possibility of Russian and SA joining the European Consortium. Burke moves that the chair respond to the letter from Russia expressing that first Russia should explore the possibility to join European consortium. The chair will also invite a similar exploration between South Africa and the European consortium. The outcome of this will be reported at the next ISSC meeting. Butcher seconded the motion. Terzian stressed that a positive tone is essential. We should state that MOU does not allow for new membership at this time, we are exploring changes. Motion approved with no objections. Burke moves that an ad hoc committee be appointed re changes to ISSC membership. Zensus seconded. Approved with no objections. Diamond suggested the ISSC executive might be the appropriate body, to which there was general disagreement. This committee should have representation from the three major groups. The ISSC Chair should appoint the committee. The committee should come to the next meeting with a recommendation. Approved with no objections. Action: Ekers to appoint the committee on new membership. Schilizzi requested clarification regarding the expected distribution of capital funding. All agreed to 1/3 Europe, 1/3 USA and 1/3 remainder. Action to Taylor: distribute action items separately to ISSC in advance of next

Page 7 of 21

meeting. Action to Taylor: communicate ISSC executive telecon discussions to ISSC. Ekers noted that Hanbury Brown has passed away. 6. Review of Action Items from 6th ISSC meeting (Taylor)

1. Taylor to create and distribute for comment the public version of the minutes of the 5th meeting. Done

2. Taylor to coordinate India’s signing of the ISSC MOU. Done 3. Taylor and Wilkinson to prepare web page with presentation resources. In

process 4. Taylor to prepare a cost proposal for a portable display booth, and coordinate a

group to prepare display material. Done. Display is exhibited at the meeting. 5. Ekers to coordinate the advertisement for SKA project director. In process 6. Ekers to form a selection committee for the project director from the ISSC

membership. In process 7. Preston to prepare a job description for the project director and solicit input

from the ISSC. Done 8. Taylor to notify the EMT that their membership has been approved. Done 9. ISSC to identify a new EMT chair at the January meeting (to take up the

position in August). In process 10. Preston to prepare a detailed near-term project timeline. Done 11. Ekers to send out guidelines and requests for strawman concept designs to

Commission J chairs in participating countries. In process 12. Brouw to prepare a document on the scope of the software engineering team.

Done. Submitted for this meeting. 13. ISSC to identify a new chair for the Site Evaluation and Selection Committee

by January. In process 14. Taylor to prepare a cover letter for request for expression of interest to host the

SKA. Done. Sent to Commission J representatives 22 November 15. Butcher and Baan to revise the ”hosting the SKA” document to be attached to

the cover letter, in cooperation with the chair of the Site Evaluation and Selection Committee. Done. Sent with cover letter.

16. Ekers to distribute the letter and attachments. Done 17. Taylor to post the SKA logo drafts on the web for review and comment. Done 18. Taylor to implement an index page to SKA project sites. In process 19. Taylor to implement and maintain a web-based formal memo series. Done 20. Taylor to place a “newsletter” button on the main SKA home page. Done 21. Ekers to contact the nominee for astronomy consultant to the OECD task

force. Done 22. All to send comments about the IP document to Schilizzi. In process 23. All to send comments on project management job profiles to Preston. Done

The question arose, what is process for approval of memos? It was agreed that there would be no formal process, just put disclaimer. Action to Taylor: place a disclaimer on the SKA memo series page that memos are the

Page 8 of 21

opinions of the authors. The ALMA site can be used for an example. 7. Review of SKA Timeline and Planning and Decision Making (Preston/Butcher) Preston presented the most recent draft timeline chart. He proposed that a date of 08/2003 for a short list seems too optimistic. The US group recommends that these dates be allowed to slip by as much as two years. Butcher notes, however, that the time line is linked to funding opportunities. If there is a disparity between funding timelines in different countries, how is this to be handled? Preston presented an alternate process extending to 08/2007. Butcher proposed that changing the timeline significantly would have negative impact at the political level. A better approach would be to change the definitions of the goals, e.g. 2005 “Choice of Concept(s)”, instead “Concept”. 8. Procedure for decision making. (Butcher) The ISSC needs to establish the process for consensus decision making. Documents are required, and an agreed white paper with a background summary, statement of the issues, and statement of decision making procedure that is to be followed. The draft decision must then be circulated widely and discussed at meetings before a final decision is communicated. Action: Butcher to draft a guideline statement and invite comments from individual consortia. [The meeting was adjourned for the day]. 18 January 2002 Ekers made the following points upon returning to the discussion [Powerpoint presentation attached ].. Implicit vs explicit knowledge

• Need white papers to turn implicit knowledge to explicit knowledge • Transfer understanding of the process to those not involved in its creation

Creativity and innovation via cross-fertilization

• e.g. ATA innovation is very high. Some ideas came from other groups. • Need a cooperative discussion mode to move ahead with various innovations

and concepts

Prepare for Maastricht

• EMT activity to produce input documents • Science Advisory Committee inputs

Page 9 of 21

• Articulate science impact versus cost for each technology • How to assess scientific impact? The SAC report on the workshop will hope

to identify most of the high priority science. But “impact” may be difficult to quantify.

Action: Taylor to collect PowerPoint presentations at ISSC meeting and place in ftp site. Preston returns to the revised timeline issue. Preston suggests that yesterday’s proposal had too much slippage and proposes to move last two items back by one year, resulting in the following timeline.

• 02/02 Preliminary Science Goals and requirements • 05/02 Preliminary Strawman Designs • 08/02 Review of Preliminary Strawman Designs (Maastricht) • 08/03 Guidelines for Final Strawman Concept Choices • 08/05 Short list of Strawman Designs • 08/07 Choice of Design Concepts

Preston will draft letter with guidelines inviting preliminary strawman concepts.. Taylor to send the letter with guidelines to project leaders of the concepts. Include in the concept designs an assessment of proposed review timescale. Schilizzi suggests we leave the timeline as current published and ask concept leaders to respond to timeline issue. Reassess timeline in Maastricht in response to the inputs on the concept designs. Approved with no objections. Ekers noted that Australia has produced a national brochure for the SKA with industrial emphasis. The U.S. has also produced an SKA brochure with the U.S. perspective. Why is this specific brochure needed? Is it detrimental to the global effort and the perspective that the SKA is a cooperative global initiative? It was pointed out that the US-centric brochure was needed as part of the promotion of the SKA to the NSF. Burke notes that at some point the ISSC will pass out of existence and will be replaced by a formal organization. What will be the form of the organization of the project and when will this evolve? Return to this in Maastricht. Action: Tarter and Butcher to report at the Maastricht meeting on “Steps toward an International Organizational Structure for the SKA Project” 9. International Project Management Plan Preston reminded the ISSC of the project management structure recommended at past meetings, shown in the figure 1.

Page 10 of 21

Figure 1. Draft SKA Management Structure presented by Preston

Draft SKA Management Plan

Figure 1. Draft SKA Management Structure presented by Preston Brouw suggests Science Advisory Committee should be advisory to the ISSC rather than the Director. 10. Director of SKA Concept Development (Ekers) The designation of the position was discussed. The name should include “international”. “Director International SKA Office”, suggest an organizational structure. Funding: The proposed budget is $150 k USD, with 1/3 US, 1/3 Europe, 1/3 others (about 5% per delegate to the ISSC). What does this budget include? How will benefits and/or overhead be handled? Is it possible to hire someone on a sabbatical leave? Preston suggests we make salary and tenure length negotiable. The issue of overhead will need to be discussed with the potential host institute. Travel expenses could be funded by a separate funding arrangement. Two years is a minimum reasonable

Page 11 of 21

tenure. Action: Ekers to contact China and India on ability to commit funding. Several institutes have come forward as potential hosts. The Selection/Search Committee proposed by Ekers is: Ekers, Butcher, Tarter, Taylor, Diamond, Kellermann, Swarup. Cordes suggests a representative of the lead US institute on the NSF proposal (Cornell) should be a member. Kellermann suggests the selection committee could report to the chair. The selection committee will produce a ranked list of possible candidates, but the selection committee should not be involved in negotiating with candidates. Welch suggests three, three, and three from each of the groups within the ISSC. This suggestion not carried. The committee should stay small. The US members of the ISSC will recommend two US representatives on the committee. The selection committee will appoint a chair Preston returns to the name issue. Suggest “Director International SKA Development” Approved. Action: All to send comments to Taylor on the draft advertisement. Feedback on ad to Taylor before January 28 then it will be sent out to ISSC for final approval The advertisement should be sent to at least one international journal, e.g. Nature, AAS, AAS newsletter. The advertisement should as for “expression of interest” rather than an “application”. The deadline should be July 1. Action: Kellermann to look into getting the add into the AAS newsletter U.S. Consortium designated Ken Kellermann and Yervant Terzian to be US representatives on the Search Committee. Terzian replace Tarter on the initial list. Based on this substitution, the membership of the search committee is approved by vote with one abstention. 11. Procedure for Evolving Strawman Specifications After the recent workshop in Bonn, there is a recommendation to increase the maximum baselines than in strawman design. Other discussions to revise the specifications are underway as a result of the Bologna science workshop. Butcher recommends that the ISSC develop a white paper for evolving the strawman specifications in an agreed manner. Action: Butcher to develop guidelines for evolving strawman specifications. 12. Responses to Invitations for Siting the SKA and Future Plan

Page 12 of 21

Taylor summarized the responses to the letter of invitation to host the SKA site. A compilation of responses prior to the meeting is attached. Susan McKenna-Lawlor from the Birr Heritage Institute in Ireland was in attendance. McKenna-Lawlor summarized the Birr Heritage Institute goals. There is interest to establish a radio telescope at the site. One possibility is a station, but she does not exclude possibility that operations centre could be hosted at Birr. She requests to be put on mailing list for the SKA project. She notes that Birr board will have representation from the Irish Cabinet. Action: McKenna-Lawlor to send the Birr site survey report to Taylor Brouw suggests that Science Centre concept referred to in the letter of invitation is not necessary. Butcher notes that the SKA will be a very distributed facility that does not need operations to be located in any specific place. The operations centre does not need to be at the telescope. The operational model for the SKA is not well defined, but may be very distributed. Science Centres are not necessarily support centres but distributed operations centres. But the operations centres should not necessarily be distinct from science activities. Should the guidelines lay out a request for response to host an SKA station, as opposed to the central site? Guidelines will not solicit requests to host stations only but such expressions are welcome since they engage the community. Action: Taylor to respond to letters noting that guidelines will be sent by October 2002. 13. Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (Schilizzi) Schilizzi reported that comments received from Australia via Brouw on the document circulated for Berkeley. A revised document has been submitted to this meeting (attached) . An intellectual properties register should be implemented as soon as possible. We will need to think about what the process will be if and when IP becomes patentable. For example, in the case of student who is not employed by institutes, IP may be owned by the student. What about visitors to institutes? Who owns IP they might generate? Welch points out that this document is also to protect the project. This may be the most important reason. The ATA has submitted a patent for the log-periodic receiver design to ensure they can use the design with restriction. Burke asks what are IP rights for work funded by the SKA project, in relation to the institute where the research may has been carried out? The next step will be to have the document reviewed by lawyers. Ekers suggests a working group to include US perspective before submitting the document to lawyers. Action: Terzian to suggest a name for US working group member to Schilizzi.

Page 13 of 21

14. Role of LOFAR, ATA, e-MERLIN and the EVLA in the Context of the SKA a) LOFAR (Lazio) Options: Complementary Journey? Both telescopes with 1 square kilometre or collecting area. There is overlap in science and technology. Site characterization, configuration studies, RFI mitigation, data transport and management, science goals. Shared infrastructure? Power, roads, access, fibre optics needs are common to the SKA. LOFAR grow into SKA? Front ends different, but everything else the same? Cautionary notes: There is a mismatch in timescales. LOFAR construction is planned to begin in 2004. The LOFAR site choice must proceed rapidly very rapidly. The LOFAR project cannot delay the site selection to accommodate the SKA criteria. LOFAR specifications are for 1 sq km in collecting area at 15 MHz. Effective area drops as frequency squared. At 120 MHz a different dipole set will increase the effective area. What is the effective area at 240 MHz? No good answer yet but about 1%. b) ATA (Welch) The ATA will consist of 350 6.1-m antennas operating from 0.5 to 11 GHz with multiple beams within field of view. Antennas are offset parabaloids so there is very little blockage (about 1%). The pointing requirements are the current cost driver. The Receiver temperature is about 15K across band. The total system noise is about 45 K at 10 GHz. Integrated laser/EA modulator will cost about $2400 in two years. Initial telescope will have four tunable bands, and in each band four independent beams. Expect that the entire ATA primary beam can be imaged over a bandwidth of about 100 MHz. RFI mitigation experiments are underway with the Rapid Prototype Array using signals from GPS satellites. A configuration program has been developed to optimize the synthesized beam. The near-in sidelobes peak at 1% and the beam width will be 78 arcminutes at 1.4 GHz. Null forming experiments have been carried out in software.

Page 14 of 21

The overall timeline is:

• 2002 - CDR, construction of production test array and operational tests • 2003 - begin construction • 2005 - construction is complete.

Welch notes that SKA specs could be met with 15 m antennas using this technology. This would provide 200 MHz as the lowest frequency. Antennas could be made to work up to 22 GHz for some cost. c) e-MERLIN (Diamond) e-Merlin has been funded at13 M eu. A major element is a Fibre optic connection, which will provide data rates of 30 Gbits/s per telescope. The maximum distance of cable is about 400 km. Phase will not be transferred over fibre. Instead the L band link will transmit phase. A phase transfer study will be carried out. Relevance to SKA

• Fibre study • HTSC filters for RFI mitigation • Remote operations antennas (weekly maintenance visits) • Remote diagnostic systems • Image processing techniques

COBRA – a first generation software receiver (hardware = 190 PC’s) is now in place. Current primarily use is for pulsar observing, and as a spectrometer for the focal plan array. e-MERLIN Timeline:

• March 2002: conceptual design review • Summer 2003: new C-band receiver available • 2004: frequency flexibility available • 2006: 12-month MERLIN shut down • Early 2007: first light

d) EVLA (Kellermann) The EVLA phase I is funded at 5 M per year. Phase II, the addition of the New Mexico Array (NMA) may be completed on same timescale (2010), but Phase II is not yet funded. Sites for the NMA antennas are being studied in cooperation with the LOFAR group. Site parameters will take into consideration LOFAR and SKA requirements. The EVLA project has considerable data management issues. As part of the EVLA

Page 15 of 21

end-to-end design of telescope use is being reviewed. Consideration is also being given to using other types of antennas than 25-m reflectors, although 25-m reflectors are default plan. The EVLA scientific goals are a good match to SKA science. A simple approach to SKA is to replace the EVLA antennas with 100m class stations. 15. Committee Reports a) Site Evaluation and Selection Committee (Terzian) Membership is Ananthakrishan, Baan, Jonas, Yu Shengin, Terzian and Thomas (chair). Terzian summarized the hosting document, and noted the guideline document is needed on a very short timescale. Schilizzi notes that reference to baselines of 2000 to 3000 in the hosting document, and the stress on low population density did not have the unanimous endorsement of the ISSC. Ekers noted that while the site invitation letter was distributed to the ISSC for feedback, the ISSC did not have the chance to comment on the revised “hosting” document. Action: SESC will submit a draft guideline document to Taylor by July 1 for review and discussion by the ISSC at the Maastricht. Ekers suggested that we should not bee too strong on the regulatory issue at this point. Terzian is recommended as replacement for Thomas to take over as chair of the SESC after Maastricht. Approved unanimously. Thomas will be requested to continue as member of the committee. b) Engineering Management Team (written submission attached) Action: Taylor to ask Hall if EMT reports can be put on the SKA memo web page. Brouw asked to know if the members proposed on the working groups have been asked to serve? ISSC recommends that chair of the EMT has the authority to establish the members of the working groups. Action: Ekers to communicate this to Hall. We need to consider appointment of new chair after Maastricht. Action: Ekers to ask Hall to consider staying on as chair of the EMT. c) Science Advisory Committee (Taylor) The Science Advisory Committee has developed nine scientific working groups, chaired by one of the SAC members. Since the Berkeley meeting the main work has been to plan the SKA Science Workshop held at Bologna immediately before this

Page 16 of 21

ISSC meeting. This was a working meeting in which each of the working groups was charged to with the following actions.

• Identify o level 1 (unique to SKA and high priority), o Level 2 (complementary to other next generation facilities, high

priority)? • What observational parameter space is needed for the level 1 and 2 science

drivers? • Address each of the strawman specs and modify as required? • Are simulations needed? • Does your working group need to be further subdivided?

The working group chairs gave oral reports at the end of the workshop and were tasked to produce short written reports. These reports will be posted on the web. Taylor will then synthesis the reports to produce an overall review of the SKA specifications and a summary of the simulation efforts required to advance the SKA science discussion. It was recommended that the working group chairs to create web pages for their working group. Mantovani reported on the “Italian day” (January 16). There were 50 participants at the Italian Day, representing 14 different institutes. Presentations included seven invited talks and 5 short contributions. Action: Mantovani to ensure the presentations for the “Italian Day” are placed on the web. Taylor stated that he is no longer able to devote enough time to the job of SAC chair and would like to step down. We will need a replacement for chair of the SAC. Action: All to send recommendations for replacement to Ron Ekers. 16. Software Engineering Group (Brouw) Brouw proposes that we implement at Software Engineering Group. His recommendation attached . The ISSC recommends that such a group be formed as a working group of the EMT. 17. Secretary’s Report (Taylor) The Secretariat budget summary of income and expenses from July 1, 2001 to January 2002 is listed in Table 1. Table 1. Budget Update for Period July 1, 2001 – January 2002 International Square Kilometre Array Secretariat

Revenue Annual Contributions for

Page 17 of 21

2001/2002 European SKA Constortium 18,326.40 CSIRO (Australia) 6,232.00 SETI Institute (USA) 19,081.20 NCRA (India) 3,137.30 NRC (Canada) 6,346.00 Total Revenue 53,122.90 Expenses Display Booth Hardware: Pacific

Dislay Group 3,795.02

Travel (Jayanne English) 390.00 GST 292.63 Total Expenses 4,477.65 Revnue - Expenses 48,645.25 Commitments:

(estimated) Graphics for Display Booth 3,000.00

University of Calgary (23,500 USD)

35,250.00

Total Estimated Commitments 38,250.00 The report from financial services at University of Calgary did not include a balance forward to July 1. Action: Taylor to update budget with balance forward. Taylor submitted several logos for comment to the ISSC after the Berkeley meeting. The logo concept that received the most votes was introduced for approval by the ISSC. The logo was approved subject to a check international spelling of “kilometre”. 18. Update on OECD Spectrum Management Task Force (Ekers) Discussion deferred to next meeting. 19. Election of ISSC Executive (Taylor) Taylor reminded the members that the positions of Chair and vice-chair are two-year terms, and will come up for renewal in August 2002. The MOU states that “The chair and vice-chair of the ISSC will be elected by majority vote of the core membership”. At the 4th ISSC meeting (Jodrell Bank) the current executive consisting of a chair,

Page 18 of 21

two-vice chairs and executive secretary was set up with the following understanding (item 1a from the minutes of the 4th meeting): “In order to have representation from all major regions Ekers suggested that the executive be increased to four members. The proposal arising from discussion was for a temporary structure for the executive that would allow for a total executive of four, consisting of the chair, vice-chair, past-chair and executive secretary. During the first cycle (two years), we will elect two vice chairs. At the next election, when the current chair becomes the past-chair, we will revert to one vice-chair as laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding.” We therefore need to elect one of the current vice-chairs to chair. Following this there will be an election for a new vice-chair. The current vice-chair who is not elected to chair will automatically become a nominee for vice-chair. An election will be held as part of the next ISSC meeting and the new chair and vice-chair will assume office at the end of that meeting. Ron Ekers will remain on the executive as past-chair. Action: Members of the ISSC to nominate candidates for vice-chair before the next ISSC meeting . 20. Future Meetings a) August 2002: Maastricht (van Ardenne) This meeting will be held from 13 to 17 August in Groningen at Het Kasteel. Proposed program is a workshop for 2.5 days followed by an ISSC meeting from 16-17 August Action: Van Ardenne to send more detailed program of Groningen Workshop to ISSC for comment. URSI 2002: Radio Science in the Wireless Age 17-24 August. Maastricht. Van Ardenne highlighted 10 sessions where SKA relevant discussions/presentations will occur. b) January 2003 U.S. invited ISSC back to US. Potential sites Socorro, Arecibo, Pasedena. Diamond recommends Arecibo if the US invitation is accepted. ISSC also prefers Arecibo if US invitation accepted. South Africa and Russia also extend an invitation, Invitation from Russia. Invitation also offered from Ireland. Its was agreed to accept the US invitation to meet in Arecibo. Action: Terzian to send proposed dates for the Arecibo meeting to Taylor c) July 2003: Geraldton, Australia A report on planning for Geraldton ( attached ) was provided by Bruce Thomas on behalf of the LOC. It was pointed out that two days will be needed for the ISSC meeting. Ken Kellerman, Bryan Gaensler and Phil Diamond, are appointed to join the

Page 19 of 21

Workshop Planning Committee (WPC). Action: Taylor to inform Bruce Thomas A science meeting is proposed by Europe SKA Consortium to be held around March 2003 in Berlin. The meeting, entitled “Gaze at the Dawn of the Universe: Observatories for the next Decade” is intended to relate the SKA to other large facilities. 21. List of Action Items Arising (Taylor)

1. van Ardenne to circulate a program of the URSI meeting to ISSC members. 2. Ekers, Schilizzi and Kellermann to facilitate a Joint Discussion Group on

Future Large Facilities at the Sydney IAU GA in 2003. 3. Butcher to contact the appropriate DSN organization in Europe including

space agencies and planetary science community. 4. Hirabayashi to contact the corresponding appropriate bodies in Japan 5. Taylor to invite Paris Herouni to attend the next ISSC meeting as an

observer. 6. Yervant to provide contact information to Taylor 7. Ekers to appoint committee to recommend process for new membership in the

ISSC. 8. The new membership committee to present recommendation at the next ISSC

meeting. 9. Taylor to distribute action items separately to ISSC in advance of next meeting. 10. Taylor to communicate ISSC executive telecon discussions to ISSC. 11. Taylor to place a disclaimer on the SKA memo series page that memos are the

opinions of the authors. 12. Butcher to draft a guideline statement on the process for decision making and

invite comments from individual consortia. 13. Taylor to collect PowerPoint presentations at ISSC meeting and place in ftp

site. 14. Preston to draft letter inviting strawman concepts with guidelines. Taylor to

send the letter with guidelines to project leaders of the concepts 15. Tarter and Butcher to report at the Maastricht meeting on “Steps toward an

International Organizational Structure for the SKA Project” 16. Ekers to contact China and India on ability to commit funding. 17. All to send comments to Taylor on the draft advertisement. Feedback on ad to

Taylor before January 28 then it will be sent out to ISSC for final approval 18. Kellermann to look into getting the add into the AAS newsletter 19. Butcher to develop guidelines for evolving the strawman technical

specifications. 20. McKenna-Lawlor to send the Birr site survey report to Taylor 21. Taylor to respond to letters noting that guidelines will be sent by October

2002. 22. Terzian to suggest a name for US working group member on IP to Schilizzi. 23. SESC will submit a draft guideline document to Taylor by July 1 for review

and discussion by the ISSC at the Maastricht. 24. Taylor to ask Hall if EMT reports can be put on the SKA memo web page. 25. Ekers to ask Hall to consider staying on as chair of the EMT. 26. All to send recommendations for replacement to Ron Ekers.

Page 20 of 21

27. Taylor to update budget with balance forward. 28. Members of the ISSC to nominate candidates for vice-chair before the next

ISSC meeting 29. Van Ardenne to send more detailed program of Groningen Workshop to ISSC

for comment. 30. Terzian to send proposed dates for the Arecibo meeting to Taylor 31. Taylor to inform Bruce Thomas of new Geraldton WPC members.

Page 21 of 21