EVLA Advisory Committee Meeting

1
Where From Here?

• Rick Perley

2
Topics

• Fate of Phase II Proposal.
• Evolution of Phase II?
• Connections to SKA, and others.
• Planning for next Decadal Survey.

3
A Brief History of The Sad Fate of Phase II

• Phase I proposal submitted May 2000. High
  resolution, E-config., and low frequency
  components removed for technical and budget
  reasons.
• Phase II proposal development process lengthy.
  About 6 person-years involved. Proposal
  submitted April 2004, following considerable
  internal (NRAO and AUI) review.
• Review process lengthy. NSF showed little
  enthusiasm. Reviewer reports mixed, but mostly
  Excellent and V.Good.
• Reverse Site Visit held at NSF in June, 2005.
  Reviewers were Balick, Feigelson, Heiles, Elvis,
  Bartos, Weiler.
• NSF informed AUI in December 2005 the proposal
  would not be funded without explanation or
  suggestions.

4
Why?

• Suggested reasons for Phase II demise easy to
  list
• Insufficient perceived support from community
  (but how to define?)
• Insufficient effort on our part to sell (aka
  hype) the proposal. (But shouldnt this process
  be conducted before the decadal panel which we
  did, and which was eminently successful?)
• Insufficient funds at the NSF. (Even this is
  debatable the MRE line is in good shape). The
  RSV committee was told from the start that Phase
  II could not be funded.
• Competition from within our own community the
  USSKA proposal submitted at the same time, with
  considerable overlap in some areas.
• The NSFs Phase II Reverse Site Committee
  recommended that we revise, rewrap, and
  re-propose, following an extensive public
  advertisement campaign.
• The NSF declined to accept this recommendation.

5
Reasons to Resubmit?

• High resolution, high sensitivity astronomy is
  important (but perhaps not fashionable). Full
  EVLAs capabilities truly unique.
• The science case is very strong, although
  evidently not appreciated or understood by the
  non-radio community.
• There is no other major radio proposal anywhere
  close to fruition.
• The SKA is becoming (has become!) a low-frequency
  instrument, and will not be constructed in the
  US.
• This evolution leaves open the 1 50 GHz
  frequency range where the EVLA performs best,
  for development.
• The EVLA1 EVLA2 VLBA continuity arguments
  remain valid.

6
Reasons to Not Resubmit

• No major ground-based proposal ever gets funded
  late in the 2nd half of a decade.
• Existing proposal already labelled (unjustly) as
  a loser perceptions are hard to counteract.
• Much of the community has been sold on the SKA
  Vision without clear understanding of the time
  and cost involved and are not receptive to a
  modest proposal like Phase II.
• We need to get a community consensus on what
  they want, then lead the effort to get it.
  This cant be done prior to the formation of the
  next Decadal Committee.
• We dont have the staff resources to take the RSV
  Committees advice, even if we wanted to.

7
Relations with the SKA, and USSKA

• If nothing else, the SKA initiative has
  commandeered the agenda despite its impossible
  cost and timescale.
• Support from SKA and USSKA for EVLA, particularly
  Phase II, has been lukewarm at best.
• General perception that NRAO must integrate US
  communitys SKA interests into our planning and
  development.
• We must clearly do better at interacting with the
  US community than than in past, but our resources
  are limited, and the sense of the community
  unclear.
• Unclear (to me, at least) just where the USSKA
  is, and where it wants to go.

8
Where Do We Go?

• It is now clear that the International SKA is
  moving towards a low-frequency (lt 2 GHz)
  facility, probably located in western Australia.
• This opens up an opportunity to develop a high
  frequency SKA to cover 1 50 GHz.
• Our suggestion Evolve Phase II to take over
  high frequency SKA, integrate/expand Phase I,
  location in NM, expansion of the Phase II
  proposal.
• Develop this over next 3 years, sell to and
  convince the US astronomical community, sell to
  next Decadal Panel.
• Have full proposal ready for submission to NSF on
  the same day the Decadal Panel recommendations
  are released.
• This strategy worked for Phase I