From s.kurtz@astrosmo.unam.mx Thu Aug 26 18:49:09 2004
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:03:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Stan Kurtz <s.kurtz@astrosmo.unam.mx>
To: John Dickey <john@astro.umn.edu>
Cc: marvel@aas.org
Subject: EVLA section

Dear John & Kevin,

Hi, my apologies for the (extra) delay in getting this sent to you.
I'm not sure it was worth the wait, but you'll be the judge of that.

In the end, I didn't do very much more than modify a sub-section of
what Deidre and Cornelia had written.  They added two points at the
end of the VLA section that related to the EVLA, and addressed the
main issue that was discussed in this regard at the meeting, to wit,
hardware upgrades vs. maintaining user support.

My recollection of the EVLA discussion at the meeting is that there
were no contentious issues, and no overwhelming strong opinions about
any aspect of the report.  I think this is reflected in what Deidre
and Cornelia wrote.  My suggestion is that we move points 1 and 2 from
their write-up to the EVLA section.  Below, I've attempted to include
the two points in a (slightly) expanded EVLA section.

Let me know what you think.
I can add more if you feel it's warranted.  But quite frankly, I felt
at the meeting that the EVLA section did not generate much attention
beyond receiving the report that everything is proceeding more-or-less
as planned.

Best regards to you both,
Stan


*********************************************************************

The Committee received reports on both Phase I and Phase II of the
EVLA project.  We are satisfied by the progress that has been made in
both phases.  Although Phase I schedules have slipped in some areas,
we are satisfied that the proposed recovery plan is adequate to bring
the project back on schedule by the end of 2005.

In the case of EVLA Phase II, we are pleased that the proposal has
been submitted to NSF.  We share the disappointment that it was not
feasible to include a low-frequency component in the proposal, but we
agree completely that the additional delay that would have resulted
was unacceptable.

The staff requested Committee input on user priorities during the VLA
to EVLA transition.  In particular, should the transition to the EVLA
be made before all outfitted antennas are available?  And are new
frequency capabilities a sufficiently high priority that they should
be made available on the old correlator?  In the former case, the
committee feels that probably the transition to EVLA should be made
before all outfitted antennas are available, but the decision will
likely depend on the specific status of the EVLA at the time.  In the
latter case, our feeling is that early access to additional
frequencies is not a sufficiently high priority to warrant the
additional effort to install them on the old correlator.  In any case,
the committee view is that new capabilities of the EVLA should be made
available as early as practical, but only if doing so will not
significantly compromise the efficiency of the transition process.

*********************************************************************