SKA

1
SKA

• SESC
• Penticton, Canada
• July 2004

2
SKA SESC

• Subra Ananthakrishnan (India)
• Willem Baan (The Netherlands)
• Wim Brouw (Australia)
• Justin Jonas (South Africa)
• Yervant Terzian (USA) Committee Chair
• Shengyin Wu (China)

3

• SESC Working Group on RFI
• Roberto Ambrosini (Italy)
• Ron J. Beresford (Australia)
• Albert Jan Boonstra (The Netherlands)
• Steve Ellingson (USA) Chairman of WG
• Ken Tapping (Canada)

4
RFI Measurement ProtocolFor Candidate SKA
SitesRFI WG 2003
5
Site Proposals Received (May 31, 2003)
(1) Australia (2)
China (3) South Africa
(4) USA Site Proposals
Received (March 31, 2004) (5)
Argentina (6) Brazil
Europe No proposal for now
6
SKA configurationWestern Australia example
7
Australia
8
SKA in Argentina
9
Argentina
10
Brazil
11
Brazil
12
(Landsat)
SKA in China
13
NxArecibo

• Karst region for array of large Arecibo-like
  Telescopes
• D gt 200 m

14
(No Transcript)
15
New Mexico and North America
16

Plains of San Augustin

17
New Mexico

18
Site Coordinates _________________
_________________________ Country Longitude
Latitude _______________________
___________________ Deg.
Min. Deg. Min. Australia
117 04 E 26 30
S Argentina 69 18 W 31
29 S Brazil 47 05 W
13 35 S China 106
37 E 29 09 N South
Afr. 21 49 E 27
36 S US 107 37 W
34 04 N ______________________________
____________
19
Request for Proposals Siting and Hosting the
SKA (Draft)
20

• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• THE SKA SITE SELECTION PROCESS
• Selection Procedures By the ISSC
• Role of the Evaluation and Selection Committees
• General Selection Criteria
• DETAILED EVALUATION CRITERIA
• Definition of Terms
• Bench-mark Data
• Principles of Evaluation
• Detailed Evaluation Criteria
• The Quality of Science
• Infrastructure, Climatic and Costing Issues
• National Attributes for Siting the SKA
• CONCLUDING REMARKS

21

• Selection Procedures by the ISSC
• 2002 Invitation to all regions of the world to
  submit Initial Expressions of Interest in hosting
  the SKA.
• July 2002 Initial Expressions of Interest were
  received and evaluated by the ISSC.
• Nov 2002 Invitation to submit Initial Site
  Analyses.
• A total of six countries/regions were invited by
  the ISSC to submit Initial Site Analyses by 31
  May 2003.
• June-July 2003 Evaluation of the Initial Site
  Analyses by the SKA Site Evaluation and Selection
  Committee.
• Dec 2003 Evaluation of responses to the
  additional questions.
• April 2004 Two additional Initial Site Analysis
  proposals.
• Aug 2004 Request for Proposals to site / host
  the SKA.
• August 2004-November 2005 RFI Monitoring.
• August-December 2005 Proposal Evaluation
• Evaluation done by the International Site
  Selection Advisory Committee (ISSAC).
• January-March 2006 Evaluation by the ISSC.
• March 2006 Decision by the ISSC.

22

• IF TWO OR MORE SITE PROPOSALS ARE EQUALLY
  RANKED AT THE TOP, THE ISSC WILL BEGIN AN
  ITERATIVE PROCESS WITH THE REMAINING PROPOSERS IN
  ORDER TO COME TO A FINAL DECISION ON A SINGLE
  SITE.

23

• General Selection Criteria
• 1. Science
• Low Frequency 20
• High Frequency 20
• (Key science projects, sky coverage, long
  baseline adequacy)
• 2. Radio Frequency Interference 20
• (Radio quietness, Radio Quiet Zone possibilities
  / preservation)
• 3. National Conditions 5
• (Technical and scientific resources, political
  and economic stability, environmental impact
  statements)

24

• Tropospheric/Atmospheric Conditions (HF)
• 5
• (Phase stability, atmospheric absorption)
• 5. Ionospheric Conditions (LF) 5
• (Impact on low frequencies)
• 6. Physical Characteristics 10
• (Land, climate, population, roads)
• 7. Data Connectivity 5
• (Fiber optics, new or for rent, for entire array)
• 8. Capital and Operating Costs 10
• (Labor costs, land costs, data connectivity
  costs)

25
It should be understood that the criteria above
and their weights constitute indicative
guidelines to the evaluation committees. It
remains possible that a site may score high on
the collective evaluation shown above, and yet
may have a fatal flaw that could eliminate it
from consideration.
26
Principles of Evaluation 1. the ability to do
the optimal science with the instrument 2. the
construction cost at the proposed SKA Site
and 3. the operational costs for the proposed
SKA Facility.
27
Detailed Evaluation Criteria 1. The quality of
Science a. Short- and long-term
radio-frequency interference and protection
issues. b. Array Configuration and
performance. c. Tropospheric and ionospheric
conditions. .
28

• 2. Infrastructure, climatic and costing issues
• a. Climatic issues.
• b. Physical site-characteristics for Stations.
• c. Impact of land-use and urban centres.
• d. Existing infrastructure.
• e. Data interconnects.
• f. Costs capital and operating.

29

• 3. National attributes for siting the SKA
• a. General issues.
• b. Government and departmental interaction.
• c. Support for astronomy and the SKA Facility

30
SKA PENTICTON Thursday, July 22, 2004
9.00 am - SESC ISSUES AND THE RFP (Y.
TERZIAN) 9.15 am - The ASTRON RFI PROJECT (P.
HALL) 9.30 am - THE SITE IN ARGENTINA (G.
DUBNER) 10.00 am - THE SITE IN BRAZIL (JACQUES
LEPIN)
31
(No Transcript)