2021-12-03 TTA Requirements Meeting

• Date: 03 Dec 2021 
• Time: 9:00 ET
• Location: nraozoom04 

Attendance:

• Jeff Kern
• Dana Balser
• Mark Whitehead 
• Allison Costa

Agenda:

• Previous Actions
• Algorithm Document
  • Consider adding tables and figures for
    • Time concepts
      • hierarchies
    • Science Side vs Observation Side (fieldsource vs source; spectral spec vs hardware config)
  • Write "use cases" for Observation Planner to give examples of Acquisition Time, Duration, Setup time, etc
  • Other Comments
    • Sub-scan Intents may be more complicated (eventually) than just the three in use
    • Does the VLA do hardware config overhead on the fly?

• Use Case Document

  Jeffs Comments (e-mail Nov 23 2021

  I just went through this and I agree with everything you say.  The purpose of this document is to allow others to contribute use cases like 3.1.  I think subsection 1-4 are al very clear in what they are specifying:
  1. -> Which Facility
  2. -> Which Capability
  3. -> Required Inputs (to be used below)
  4. -> The algorithms required to map from the Capability to the Target List.   (We might make this a bit more explicit).

  Section 5 is where we describe how the target list is turned into a scanlist.  I think we need to be a bit more explicit here in order to let others know the type of information that we want to capture.

  There is an algorithm that partitions the Target List into sets that can be observed together.  We need to decide if we are going to do this with a single SB or multiple (splitting up the mosaic paintings for instance).  I think calling that out as a type of decision that needs to be made is what we’re trying to capture here.

  Maybe revise the second paragraph to emphasize what is required rather than what is not.  We want the other writers to emphasize what calibrations we need to include. Also I think we want to state somewhere that we are selecting a phase referencing strategy for the Complex Gain calibration.

  The generation of the scan list kinda seems like a black box, I think the information that we want to know here is what is important about the scanlist?  Should we work to ensure that the mosaic observations are all as close in time as possible, or should we intersperse calibrators.  I agree that this case is somewhat simple, but I think we want to give the other people some guidance on what type of information they might want to include.  For instance if this was Allie’s case of multiple sources at two frequencies we would want to specify that observations should be interleaved between frequencies to maximize UV coverage.

  Maybe this use case is too simple to serve as the guiding example by itself

• AOB

New Actions:

• Allison CostaReview Figure 1 (Mark to circulate activity diagram for reference).
• Dana Balser Review Section 5 and add GBT Position Switched Use Case.

Open Actions: