DRSP Calibration Requirements: Responses

Index:
1.1.6 | 1.1.7 | 1.1.8 | 1.2.1 | 1.2.2 | 1.2.3 | 1.5.1 | 1.5.2 | 1.5.3 | 1.6.1 | 1.6.2 | 1.6.3 | 1.6.4 | 1.6.5 | 1.6.6 | 1.6.7 | 1.7.1 | 1.7.10 | 1.7.11 | 1.7.2 | 1.7.3 | 1.7.4 | 1.7.5 | 1.7.6 | 1.7.7 | 1.7.8 | 1.8.1 | 1.8.2 | 1.8.4 | 1.8.5 | 2.1.2 | 2.1.3 | 2.1.4 | 2.1.5 | 2.1.8 | 2.1.9 | 2.2.10 | 2.2.4 | 2.2.6 | 2.2.7 | 2.2.8 | 2.2.9 | 2.3.1 | 2.3.2 | 2.3.3 | 2.4.1 | 2.4.2 | 2.4.7 | 2.4.9 | 3.1.1 | 3.1.2 | 3.2.1 | 3.2.2 | 3.2.5 | 3.2.6 | 3.5.1 | 3.5.2 | 3.5.3 | 3.5.5 | 3.5.6 | 4.1.1 | 4.1.2 | 4.1.3 | 4.1.4 | 4.1.5 | 4.1.6 | 4.1.7 | 4.1.8 | 4.1.9 | 4.2.1 | 4.2.2 | 4.2.3 | 4.2.4 | 4.2.5 | 4.2.6 | 4.2.7 | 4.2.8 | 4.3.1 | 4.3.2 | 4.3.3 | 4.3.4 | 4.3.5 | 4.3.6 | 4.3.7 | 4.3.8 | 4.4.1 | 4.4.2 |

 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Andrew Blain

DRSP number(s): 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3

DRSP name(s):


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:

Sources are distant and faint. 5% calibration would be more
than adequate. 10% acceptable.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation:

No variability is expected.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 5%

   Between receiver bands:   5%

   Please give short motivation:

Relative colors are potentially important, but 1-significant-figure
accuracy is necessary.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

N/A

5. Any other comments:

All these projects prefer sesnitivity to calibration accuracy,
and would willingly trade a 50% increase in speed for a 20%
calibration accuracy, if such a trade were possible.

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Andrew Blain

DRSP number(s): 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3

DRSP name(s):


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:

Sources are distant and faint. 5% calibration would be more
than adequate. 10% acceptable.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation:

No variability is expected.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 5%

   Between receiver bands:   5%

   Please give short motivation:

Relative colors are potentially important, but 1-significant-figure
accuracy is necessary.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

N/A

5. Any other comments:

All these projects prefer sesnitivity to calibration accuracy,
and would willingly trade a 50% increase in speed for a 20%
calibration accuracy, if such a trade were possible.

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Andrew Blain

DRSP number(s): 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3

DRSP name(s):


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:

Sources are distant and faint. 5% calibration would be more
than adequate. 10% acceptable.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation:

No variability is expected.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 5%

   Between receiver bands:   5%

   Please give short motivation:

Relative colors are potentially important, but 1-significant-figure
accuracy is necessary.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

N/A

5. Any other comments:

All these projects prefer sesnitivity to calibration accuracy,
and would willingly trade a 50% increase in speed for a 20%
calibration accuracy, if such a trade were possible.

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Andrew Blain

DRSP number(s): 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3

DRSP name(s):


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:

Sources are distant and faint. 5% calibration would be more
than adequate. 10% acceptable.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation:

No variability is expected.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 5%

   Between receiver bands:   5%

   Please give short motivation:

Relative colors are potentially important, but 1-significant-figure
accuracy is necessary.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

N/A

5. Any other comments:

All these projects prefer sesnitivity to calibration accuracy,
and would willingly trade a 50% increase in speed for a 20%
calibration accuracy, if such a trade were possible.

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Andrew Blain

DRSP number(s): 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3

DRSP name(s):


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:

Sources are distant and faint. 5% calibration would be more
than adequate. 10% acceptable.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation:

No variability is expected.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 5%

   Between receiver bands:   5%

   Please give short motivation:

Relative colors are potentially important, but 1-significant-figure
accuracy is necessary.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

N/A

5. Any other comments:

All these projects prefer sesnitivity to calibration accuracy,
and would willingly trade a 50% increase in speed for a 20%
calibration accuracy, if such a trade were possible.

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Andrew Blain

DRSP number(s): 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3

DRSP name(s):


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:

Sources are distant and faint. 5% calibration would be more
than adequate. 10% acceptable.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation:

No variability is expected.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 5%

   Between receiver bands:   5%

   Please give short motivation:

Relative colors are potentially important, but 1-significant-figure
accuracy is necessary.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

N/A

5. Any other comments:

All these projects prefer sesnitivity to calibration accuracy,
and would willingly trade a 50% increase in speed for a 20%
calibration accuracy, if such a trade were possible.

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author:     Schinnerer

DRSP number(s):  1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3

DRSP name(s):  Imaging molecular material in the vicinity of an AGN
               Circumnuclear Starburst Rings: From Gas to Stars
               Nuclear Dense Gas in Active Galaxies

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?    5%

   Please give short motivation:

  All projects depend on deriving good estimates of the molecular gas
  masses for comparison between sources as well as to model predictions.
  Thus good absolute flux calibration is critical. 

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:

   Since it is anticipated to combine data from different arrays/configurations
   while maintaining a good absolute flux calibration, having an excellent
   repeatibility is paramount to achive this goal.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 
        Not requested in the proposed projects. 

   Please give short motivation:
   Good determination of the absolute line flux is important, hence the
   requirement for the relative calibration should be the same.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author:     Schinnerer

DRSP number(s):  1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3

DRSP name(s):  Imaging molecular material in the vicinity of an AGN
               Circumnuclear Starburst Rings: From Gas to Stars
               Nuclear Dense Gas in Active Galaxies

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?    5%

   Please give short motivation:

  All projects depend on deriving good estimates of the molecular gas
  masses for comparison between sources as well as to model predictions.
  Thus good absolute flux calibration is critical. 

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:

   Since it is anticipated to combine data from different arrays/configurations
   while maintaining a good absolute flux calibration, having an excellent
   repeatibility is paramount to achive this goal.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 
        Not requested in the proposed projects. 

   Please give short motivation:
   Good determination of the absolute line flux is important, hence the
   requirement for the relative calibration should be the same.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author:     Schinnerer

DRSP number(s):  1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3

DRSP name(s):  Imaging molecular material in the vicinity of an AGN
               Circumnuclear Starburst Rings: From Gas to Stars
               Nuclear Dense Gas in Active Galaxies

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?    5%

   Please give short motivation:

  All projects depend on deriving good estimates of the molecular gas
  masses for comparison between sources as well as to model predictions.
  Thus good absolute flux calibration is critical. 

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:

   Since it is anticipated to combine data from different arrays/configurations
   while maintaining a good absolute flux calibration, having an excellent
   repeatibility is paramount to achive this goal.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 
        Not requested in the proposed projects. 

   Please give short motivation:
   Good determination of the absolute line flux is important, hence the
   requirement for the relative calibration should be the same.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:     C. Carilli (NRAO)

DRSP number(s):  1.6.1

DRSP name(s):  High resolution imaging of radio hot spots


as opposed to filling out a limited questionaire, I've
taken a  different approach. 
the main issue for the high z work, as far as I can
see, is constraining SEDs.  attached is a plot  of
a 'typical' SED,  for 4 different temperatures
for a source at z=4.
I also include the three high frequency bands for ALMA.
all spectra are normalized at 250 GHz.
then we ask: what relative calibration is needed to
constrain the temperature to 5deg?  10 deg? 20deg?

I include error bars on the plot of 3% relative band-to-band
calibration, and 10%.

1. you can see that if we only had 250 to 350 GHz, then 3%
band-to-band calibration  could constrain a
5 deg temperature difference to only 1sigma,
and a 10deg temperature change to 2sigma, and
the 20deg temperature difference to 3sigma. 

2. if we include 650 GHz then things get better.
but calibration up there will be difficult.
eg, assuming 10% band-to-band calibration and
a measurement at 250 and 650 GHz,  we constrain
the 5 deg difference at only 1.5 sigma
the 10deg difference at 2.7 sigma
and 20 deg difference at 4.4

I am still working on this, and might write it up as
a memo.  could discuss it at ASAC meeting if you like.

note I've done this in a rush (leaving for IRAM tomorrow),
so might have made some fatal error.  will check
when I get back.

blue skies,
cc

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:     C. Carilli (NRAO)

DRSP number(s):  1.6.2

DRSP name(s):  High resolution imaging of X-ray hot spots 
               in radio jets


as opposed to filling out a limited questionaire, I've
taken a  different approach. 
the main issue for the high z work, as far as I can
see, is constraining SEDs.  attached is a plot  of
a 'typical' SED,  for 4 different temperatures
for a source at z=4.
I also include the three high frequency bands for ALMA.
all spectra are normalized at 250 GHz.
then we ask: what relative calibration is needed to
constrain the temperature to 5deg?  10 deg? 20deg?

I include error bars on the plot of 3% relative band-to-band
calibration, and 10%.

1. you can see that if we only had 250 to 350 GHz, then 3%
band-to-band calibration  could constrain a
5 deg temperature difference to only 1sigma,
and a 10deg temperature change to 2sigma, and
the 20deg temperature difference to 3sigma. 

2. if we include 650 GHz then things get better.
but calibration up there will be difficult.
eg, assuming 10% band-to-band calibration and
a measurement at 250 and 650 GHz,  we constrain
the 5 deg difference at only 1.5 sigma
the 10deg difference at 2.7 sigma
and 20 deg difference at 4.4

I am still working on this, and might write it up as
a memo.  could discuss it at ASAC meeting if you like.

note I've done this in a rush (leaving for IRAM tomorrow),
so might have made some fatal error.  will check
when I get back.

blue skies,
cc

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:     C. Carilli (NRAO)

DRSP number(s):  1.6.3

DRSP name(s):  The general relativistic shadow of Sgr A*


as opposed to filling out a limited questionaire, I've
taken a  different approach. 
the main issue for the high z work, as far as I can
see, is constraining SEDs.  attached is a plot  of
a 'typical' SED,  for 4 different temperatures
for a source at z=4.
I also include the three high frequency bands for ALMA.
all spectra are normalized at 250 GHz.
then we ask: what relative calibration is needed to
constrain the temperature to 5deg?  10 deg? 20deg?

I include error bars on the plot of 3% relative band-to-band
calibration, and 10%.

1. you can see that if we only had 250 to 350 GHz, then 3%
band-to-band calibration  could constrain a
5 deg temperature difference to only 1sigma,
and a 10deg temperature change to 2sigma, and
the 20deg temperature difference to 3sigma. 

2. if we include 650 GHz then things get better.
but calibration up there will be difficult.
eg, assuming 10% band-to-band calibration and
a measurement at 250 and 650 GHz,  we constrain
the 5 deg difference at only 1.5 sigma
the 10deg difference at 2.7 sigma
and 20 deg difference at 4.4

I am still working on this, and might write it up as
a memo.  could discuss it at ASAC meeting if you like.

note I've done this in a rush (leaving for IRAM tomorrow),
so might have made some fatal error.  will check
when I get back.

blue skies,
cc

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:     C. Carilli (NRAO)

DRSP number(s):  1.6.4

DRSP name(s):  mm VLBI observations of core-jets


as opposed to filling out a limited questionaire, I've
taken a  different approach. 
the main issue for the high z work, as far as I can
see, is constraining SEDs.  attached is a plot  of
a 'typical' SED,  for 4 different temperatures
for a source at z=4.
I also include the three high frequency bands for ALMA.
all spectra are normalized at 250 GHz.
then we ask: what relative calibration is needed to
constrain the temperature to 5deg?  10 deg? 20deg?

I include error bars on the plot of 3% relative band-to-band
calibration, and 10%.

1. you can see that if we only had 250 to 350 GHz, then 3%
band-to-band calibration  could constrain a
5 deg temperature difference to only 1sigma,
and a 10deg temperature change to 2sigma, and
the 20deg temperature difference to 3sigma. 

2. if we include 650 GHz then things get better.
but calibration up there will be difficult.
eg, assuming 10% band-to-band calibration and
a measurement at 250 and 650 GHz,  we constrain
the 5 deg difference at only 1.5 sigma
the 10deg difference at 2.7 sigma
and 20 deg difference at 4.4

I am still working on this, and might write it up as
a memo.  could discuss it at ASAC meeting if you like.

note I've done this in a rush (leaving for IRAM tomorrow),
so might have made some fatal error.  will check
when I get back.

blue skies,
cc

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:     C. Carilli (NRAO)

DRSP number(s):  1.6.5

DRSP name(s):  Imaging the molecular gas in high redshift FIR-luminous
               QSOs


as opposed to filling out a limited questionaire, I've
taken a  different approach. 
the main issue for the high z work, as far as I can
see, is constraining SEDs.  attached is a plot  of
a 'typical' SED,  for 4 different temperatures
for a source at z=4.
I also include the three high frequency bands for ALMA.
all spectra are normalized at 250 GHz.
then we ask: what relative calibration is needed to
constrain the temperature to 5deg?  10 deg? 20deg?

I include error bars on the plot of 3% relative band-to-band
calibration, and 10%.

1. you can see that if we only had 250 to 350 GHz, then 3%
band-to-band calibration  could constrain a
5 deg temperature difference to only 1sigma,
and a 10deg temperature change to 2sigma, and
the 20deg temperature difference to 3sigma. 

2. if we include 650 GHz then things get better.
but calibration up there will be difficult.
eg, assuming 10% band-to-band calibration and
a measurement at 250 and 650 GHz,  we constrain
the 5 deg difference at only 1.5 sigma
the 10deg difference at 2.7 sigma
and 20 deg difference at 4.4

I am still working on this, and might write it up as
a memo.  could discuss it at ASAC meeting if you like.

note I've done this in a rush (leaving for IRAM tomorrow),
so might have made some fatal error.  will check
when I get back.

blue skies,
cc

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:     C. Carilli (NRAO)

DRSP number(s):  1.6.6

DRSP name(s):  mm VLBI imaging of IDVs


as opposed to filling out a limited questionaire, I've
taken a  different approach. 
the main issue for the high z work, as far as I can
see, is constraining SEDs.  attached is a plot  of
a 'typical' SED,  for 4 different temperatures
for a source at z=4.
I also include the three high frequency bands for ALMA.
all spectra are normalized at 250 GHz.
then we ask: what relative calibration is needed to
constrain the temperature to 5deg?  10 deg? 20deg?

I include error bars on the plot of 3% relative band-to-band
calibration, and 10%.

1. you can see that if we only had 250 to 350 GHz, then 3%
band-to-band calibration  could constrain a
5 deg temperature difference to only 1sigma,
and a 10deg temperature change to 2sigma, and
the 20deg temperature difference to 3sigma. 

2. if we include 650 GHz then things get better.
but calibration up there will be difficult.
eg, assuming 10% band-to-band calibration and
a measurement at 250 and 650 GHz,  we constrain
the 5 deg difference at only 1.5 sigma
the 10deg difference at 2.7 sigma
and 20 deg difference at 4.4

I am still working on this, and might write it up as
a memo.  could discuss it at ASAC meeting if you like.

note I've done this in a rush (leaving for IRAM tomorrow),
so might have made some fatal error.  will check
when I get back.

blue skies,
cc

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:     C. Carilli (NRAO)

DRSP number(s):  1.6.7

DRSP name(s):  Search for flat spectrum mm-loud AGN


as opposed to filling out a limited questionaire, I've
taken a  different approach. 
the main issue for the high z work, as far as I can
see, is constraining SEDs.  attached is a plot  of
a 'typical' SED,  for 4 different temperatures
for a source at z=4.
I also include the three high frequency bands for ALMA.
all spectra are normalized at 250 GHz.
then we ask: what relative calibration is needed to
constrain the temperature to 5deg?  10 deg? 20deg?

I include error bars on the plot of 3% relative band-to-band
calibration, and 10%.

1. you can see that if we only had 250 to 350 GHz, then 3%
band-to-band calibration  could constrain a
5 deg temperature difference to only 1sigma,
and a 10deg temperature change to 2sigma, and
the 20deg temperature difference to 3sigma. 

2. if we include 650 GHz then things get better.
but calibration up there will be difficult.
eg, assuming 10% band-to-band calibration and
a measurement at 250 and 650 GHz,  we constrain
the 5 deg difference at only 1.5 sigma
the 10deg difference at 2.7 sigma
and 20 deg difference at 4.4

I am still working on this, and might write it up as
a memo.  could discuss it at ASAC meeting if you like.

note I've done this in a rush (leaving for IRAM tomorrow),
so might have made some fatal error.  will check
when I get back.

blue skies,
cc

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: Meier/Turner

DRSP number(s): 1.7.1

DRSP name(s): The GMC Scale Chemical Anatomy of Nearby Galaxies.


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

  10%

   Please give short motivation:

High level absolute calibrations are of only limited importance.  Since
this project will be in line survey mode, relative calibration is much
more important than absolute calibration.  10 % should be satisfactory
for determining absolute abundance measurements.


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

 10%.

   Please give short motivation:

Assuming that the entire frequency range of a given pointing is observed
at the same time (highly reasonable given the integration times), then
repeatability is only important for comparison between different locations
within an object (if observed at different times).  Again, 10% is
certainly enough to establish changes in chemical abundances with
position.


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum, either
within one receiver band or between different receiver bands (e.g.,
line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?

 5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

 5%

   Please give short motivation:

We will wish to observe many lines within one receiver band.  Detected
transitions will be used to generate line ratios and potentially rotation
diagrams.  Therefore, the accuracy with which the gas excitation and
hence molecular abundances can be determined is set by the internal
relative calibration within a receiver band.  To determine excitation
temperatures to 10 % require relative calibration to at least 5%.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

not applicable.


5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: Christine Wilson

DRSP number(s): 1.7.10

DRSP name(s): Searching for Proto- Super Star Clusters in the Antennae

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?	10%

   Please give short motivation: The main goal in this proposal is to
search for very compact, massive gas cores that could be the sites of
super star cluster formation. The key to the program is extremely high
angular resolution rather than mass sensitivity. If we can detect very
compact things, knowing their flux (and hence mass) to 10% will be
sufficient.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 10%

   Please give short motivation: These data will be taken in the single
largest configuration to deliberately resolve out large-scale structure.
Even if observations of a single field are spread out in time over a year,
any errors in the repeatibility can just add to the absolute calibration
accuracy, which has room to spare in this project.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? N/A

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? N/A

   Please give short motivation: This is a simple detection experiment at
a single frequency, so no relative calibration between bands is required.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

None

5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
 >            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
 >            ==============================================
 >
 >            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
 >            ========================================================
 >
 >
 >Name author: K. Tatematsu
 >
 >DRSP number(s):1.7.8, 1.7.11, 2.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3,
 >
 >DRSP name(s):
Gas densities and dynamics in central regions
The CO-to-H2 conversion factor
Depletion of molecules in low-mass cores
Structure of the Molecular Gas shocked by SNR
SNR-cloud interaction in the LMC
TOO: new SN

 >1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals?
 >
 >   5%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:

We like to have better calibration compared with current radio telescopes,
but < 3% accuracy is not a must for these plans.

 >2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
 >   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
 >   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
 >   archival value of your data.
 >
 >   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
 >   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
 >   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 >
 >   Within one receiver band: 3%
 >
 >   Between receiver bands:   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
 >
 >
 >5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:Turner

DRSP number(s):1.7.2

DRSP name(s):The Molecular ISM in Low Surface Brightness Galaxies


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration acc uracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: In this project we compare fluxes in
   different CO lines to get a rough idea of excitation; also there will
   be comparisons between gas and dust emission,  which could be very
   different in LSBs. 10% would probably do the job in a rough sense,
   for the line excitation. However separating dust emission from free-free
   emission will require higher accuracy, 5%.


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY  of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please giv e short motivation: For inter-band data taken at different
   times (different configurations) See above.


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either wi thin one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 5-10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5-10%

   Please give short motivation: Line shapes could be  very interesting
   in LSBs.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: Meier/Turner

DRSP number(s): 1.7.3

DRSP name(s): Calibrating the I_co to N(H_2) Conversion Factor.


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

> 5%

   Please give short motivation:

It is important in this project to have accurately calibrated absolute
CO line intensities if one wishes to have a precise CO - to - H_2
calibration.  Uncertainties in calibration correspond directly to
uncertainties in derived molecular hydrogen column densities.  The
better the calibration the more precise is our knowledge of the
molecular gas column.  Presumably this project (or similar such
projects) will hold important archival value and 5 % uncertainties
in absolute calibration should be attempted.


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

> 10%

   Please give short motivation:

Repeatability is important for obtaining a consistent calibration
for different galactic environments, if the observations are done
at significantly different epochs.  However, it is probably not
necessary to maintain 5 % calibration accuracy to establish changes
in conversion factor with astrophysical location.


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum, either
within one receiver band or between different receiver bands (e.g.,
line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?

> 5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

>5%

   Please give short motivation:

In order to determine accurate column densities, CO line ratios
will be determined.  Of the important optically thin species,
the derived excitation temperatures are very important both for
determining column densities and for determining dependencies
on gas physical conditions.  Therefore, we feel that at least
5% accuracy is needed both within one receiver band (for 13CO
and C18O line ratios) as well as between receivers (for the delta
J CO line ratios).

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

Not applicable.

5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: Christine Wilson

DRSP number(s): 1.7.4, 1.7.7

DRSP name(s):
1.7.4 Structure of the ISM in irregular galaxies
1.7.7 Gas Content and Dynamics of Elliptical Galaxies

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?	10%

   Please give short motivation: The main goal in these two proposals is
to study the physical and dynamical structure of the interstellar medium
using a few line ratio to constrain basic properties such as density and
temperature. Given the many uncertainties involved in applying radiative
transfer models over scales of 10's of pc, an absolute calibration
accuracy of 10% should be easily sufficient.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 3% ??

   Please give short motivation: I'm guessing here, but given the
resolution required plus the need to detect all spatial scales, the maps
will combine data from the ACA, Total Power, and probably more than one
configuration of the ALMA main array. To get the total structure
accurately, I'd guess you'd want good relative calibration between the
arrays, which would essentially mean good repeatibility. But I think you
may need one of Mark Holdaway's wizard simulations to really answer this
question. I'm almost sure it has to be better than 10% i.e. better than
the absolute calibration accuracy, but whether it is 5%, 3% or 1% I can't
say. The lines in these galaxies are likely to be weak, so I'd guess the
dynamic range in the maps might only be 20 or so, if that helps you figure
it out.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 3% (5% if necessary)

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 3% (5% if necessary)

   Please give short motivation: In trying to constrain physical
properties using radiative transfer models, you do better if you have
better accuracy on the line ratios. I've achieved about 10% in single dish
observations if I'm very careful, which translates into 15% uncertainty in
the line ratio, and that's not enough. If we had 3%, then the line ratio
uncertainty would be 5% and that would be very good. In a pinch I think we
could handle 5% here, but not much worse. Note I need the relative
calibration accuracy both within a band and between bands because I'd be
looking at different transitions AND isotopes of CO.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

None

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:Turner

DRSP number(s):1.7.5

DRSP name(s):Low Frequency Survey of Free-Free Emission in Nearby
Starburst Galaxies


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequencies,
   comparison with VLA data


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequency
   data taken at different epochs to match uvcoverage


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? within band NA for this
project

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

ALMA's high resolution allows resolution of HII regions and star-forming
regions in
galaxies. To separate dust clouds from HII regions from SNR one needs
precision in
measuring spectral index, and since free-free emission peaks in relative
importance
somewhere between 1cm and 3mm, the spectra may involve combining VLA and
ALMA data.
So good repeatability and absolute fluxes are important for this comparison.
Differences in alpha (flux proportional to nu^alpha) of 0.5 are significant.
Uncertainties of 5% in each flux lead to an uncertainty of 0.1 in alpha at
alpha ~0.

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:Turner

DRSP number(s):1.7.6

DRSP name(s):Study of Gas Masses and Star Formation Efficiencies in Nearby
Galaxies


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 3%

   Please give short motivation: Mosaic


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 3%

   Please give short motivation: Mosaic


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 10%

   Please give short motivation: inter- and intra-band accuracy less
   critial for this project (bandpass, spectra)


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

Large mosaic requires high calibration accuracy; there will also be
extended emission to contend with.

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: Christine Wilson

DRSP number(s): 1.7.4, 1.7.7

DRSP name(s):
1.7.4 Structure of the ISM in irregular galaxies
1.7.7 Gas Content and Dynamics of Elliptical Galaxies

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?	10%

   Please give short motivation: The main goal in these two proposals is
to study the physical and dynamical structure of the interstellar medium
using a few line ratio to constrain basic properties such as density and
temperature. Given the many uncertainties involved in applying radiative
transfer models over scales of 10's of pc, an absolute calibration
accuracy of 10% should be easily sufficient.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 3% ??

   Please give short motivation: I'm guessing here, but given the
resolution required plus the need to detect all spatial scales, the maps
will combine data from the ACA, Total Power, and probably more than one
configuration of the ALMA main array. To get the total structure
accurately, I'd guess you'd want good relative calibration between the
arrays, which would essentially mean good repeatibility. But I think you
may need one of Mark Holdaway's wizard simulations to really answer this
question. I'm almost sure it has to be better than 10% i.e. better than
the absolute calibration accuracy, but whether it is 5%, 3% or 1% I can't
say. The lines in these galaxies are likely to be weak, so I'd guess the
dynamic range in the maps might only be 20 or so, if that helps you figure
it out.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 3% (5% if necessary)

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 3% (5% if necessary)

   Please give short motivation: In trying to constrain physical
properties using radiative transfer models, you do better if you have
better accuracy on the line ratios. I've achieved about 10% in single dish
observations if I'm very careful, which translates into 15% uncertainty in
the line ratio, and that's not enough. If we had 3%, then the line ratio
uncertainty would be 5% and that would be very good. In a pinch I think we
could handle 5% here, but not much worse. Note I need the relative
calibration accuracy both within a band and between bands because I'd be
looking at different transitions AND isotopes of CO.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

None

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
 >            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
 >            ==============================================
 >
 >            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
 >            ========================================================
 >
 >
 >Name author: K. Tatematsu
 >
 >DRSP number(s):1.7.8, 1.7.11, 2.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3,
 >
 >DRSP name(s):
Gas densities and dynamics in central regions
The CO-to-H2 conversion factor
Depletion of molecules in low-mass cores
Structure of the Molecular Gas shocked by SNR
SNR-cloud interaction in the LMC
TOO: new SN

 >1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals?
 >
 >   5%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:

We like to have better calibration compared with current radio telescopes,
but < 3% accuracy is not a must for these plans.

 >2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
 >   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
 >   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
 >   archival value of your data.
 >
 >   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
 >   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
 >   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 >
 >   Within one receiver band: 3%
 >
 >   Between receiver bands:   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
 >
 >
 >5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


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

            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Aalto, Johansson,  Rubio, Tatematsu, Black, Viallefond

DRSP number(s): 1.8.1

DRSP name(s): Structure and starformation of LMC/SMC molecular clouds


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   
   Between 5 and 10% should be fine

   Please give short motivation:
   
   To detect the structure and temperature of cloud complexes does not
   in itself require a better calibration accuracy than around 10% - but
   we would of course be happier with 5% since that enables a better
   determination of the radiation temperatures. 


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   
   Between 5 and 10%

   Please give short motivation: See point 1.
   
3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:
   
   If we want to use the suggested CO 2-1 data in conjunction with (for instance)
   CO 1-0 data to map out line ratio variations in the region the requirements on
   the relative calibrations become tighter of course. To get good absolute values
   of for instance the CO 2-1/1-0 ratio one would not like to accept calibration
   accuracies much worse than 5%.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   
   NA


5. Any other comments: -

 
Back to index
 


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

            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Aalto, Lindqvist, Schoeier, Olofsson, Black et al

DRSP number(s): 1.8.2

DRSP name(s): Evolved stars and mass loss in the Magellanic Clouds


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   
   Between 5 and 10% should be fine

   Please give short motivation:
   
   The project works with an accuracy of 10% - but the mass loss determination
   for the stars close to the detection limit becomes more uncertain. 


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   
   Between 5 and 10%

   Please give short motivation: Project is doable with 10% but one
   is of course happier with better calibration.
   
3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? 

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:
   
   If we want to use the suggested CO 3-2 data in conjunction with (for instance)
   CO 2-1 data to measure line ratios in the shells,  the requirements on
   the relative calibrations become tighter of course. To get good absolute values
   of for instance the CO 3-2/2-1 ratio one would not like to accept calibration
   accuracies much worse than 5% - but again, project is doable with 10%.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   
   NA


5. Any other comments: -

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:Turner

DRSP number(s):1.8.4

DRSP name(s):Low Frequency Continuum Survey of Free-Free Emission in
HII regions in the LMC


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequencies,
   comparison with VLA data


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequency
   data taken at different epochs to match uvcoverage


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? within band NA for this
project

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

ALMA's high resolution allows resolution of HII regions and star-forming
regions in
galaxies. To separate dust clouds from HII regions from SNR one needs
precision in
measuring spectral index, and since free-free emission peaks in relative
importance
somewhere between 1cm and 3mm, the spectra may involve combining VLA and
ALMA data.
So good repeatability and absolute fluxes are important for this comparison.
Differences in alpha (flux proportional to nu^alpha) of 0.5 are significant.
Uncertainties of 5% in each flux lead to an uncertainty of 0.1 in alpha at
alpha ~0.

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:Turner

DRSP number(s):1.8.5

DRSP name(s):Gas and Dust in 30 Doradus


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequencies,
   comparison with VLA data


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequency
   data taken at different epochs to match uvcoverage


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? within band NA for this
project

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

ALMA's high resolution allows resolution of HII regions and star-forming
regions in
galaxies. To separate dust clouds from HII regions from SNR one needs
precision in
measuring spectral index, and since free-free emission peaks in relative
importance
somewhere between 1cm and 3mm, the spectra may involve combining VLA and
ALMA data.
So good repeatability and absolute fluxes are important for this comparison.
Differences in alpha (flux proportional to nu^alpha) of 0.5 are significant.
Uncertainties of 5% in each flux lead to an uncertainty of 0.1 in alpha at
alpha ~0.
The calibration requirements of this project are driven by the need to get
spectra
of sufficient quality to separate gas and dust.

 
Back to index
 



 
DRSP:  Density and temperature profile in pre-stellar cores (2.1.2)
DRSP: Density and temperature profile in high-mass cores (2.1.4)

Authors: Aurore Bacmann, Anne Dutrey

Absolute Calibration:

For the continuum: if the continuum is optically thin, a 10% uncertainty on Ta 
yields 10% uncertainty on the density. We assume that the density is 
estimated from the continuum, and then we’ll take into account this 10% 
uncertainty in the calculation of Tk derived from the line analysis.

For the lines: If the central structure of pre-stellar cores is as expected 
(flat in the centre, which remains to
be shown at high angular resolutions, and of kinetic temperature Tk~7 K), we 
find that a 10% absolute calibration error gives reasonable results (4% error 
on Tk if N2H+ is used, 10% error if CO isotopes are
used). If we suppose a 10% uncertainty on the density as well which is derived 
from the continuum, the error on Tk rises to 6%. However it is important to 
stress that this calculation is based on hypotheses on the density and 
temperature structure of the cores which could be proven to be wrong when 
observed at the angular resolution of ALMA. 

Since density and temperature are coupled, we would like to iterate the 
analysis between the continuum data and the line data. 


Repeatability:

A repeatability of 3% is desirable. We would like to be able to have an 
absolute reference from one observation to another one in order to reduce the 
dispersion of the calibration error (the only correct way to proceed for 
snapshot observations).


Relative Calibration


The goal here is to determine the variations of the absorption dust 
coefficient in order to estimate the particle sizes. If we want to be 
sensitive to variations in the properties of dust particles with frequency, 
we need to sample the best we can the frequency range. This means that we 
have enough spectral resolution to be sensitive to possible significant 
variations of the spectral energy distribution between 82 and 720 GHz. This 
can be achieved by measuring the spectral index of the dust (or the continuum 
flux)  within each frequency band, at the edges. The variations of the 
spectral index between 2 measurements at 2 different frequencies are between 
0.6 and 1.1, if we suppose an error of 10% on both continuum flux 
measurements. Clearly, such an error on the spectral index is not acceptable  
and a relative calibration uncertainty of maximum 3% is needed. In the 
calculation, we assumed that the emission is optically thin (alpha=2+beta, 
where alpha is the spectral index of the SED and beta is the spectral index 
of the dust absorption coefficient). Equivalently, this calculation is also 
valid if thanks to the angular resolution of ALMA, we are able to measure the 
size of the inner optically thick counterpart.

This calculation is relevent from class –I (pre-stellar cores) to class II 
(disks) objects.




*******************************************************************
Justification for the absolute calibration calculation

To derive the temperature, we have chosen to use N2H+, since the ion will 
probe more central
regions than CO isotopes (due to the higher critical density of its 
transitions)
The antenna temperatures were determined with the LVG code from Castets et al. 
(1990, A&A, 234, 469)

We supposed the pre-stellar core was formed of 2 layers:
- one layer of ~ 3000 AU radius, density = 1e6 cm-3, temperature of 7 K, 
representing the core
centre (the "flattened" inner part)
- one layer of ~ 17000 AU radius, density = 3e4 cm-3, temperature of 10 K, 
representing the
envelope


the N2H+ abundance was supposed to be 1.5e-10 (e.g. Tafalla et al. 2004) in 
the whole core

the total is a core of 0.1 pc radius

for the envelope, the LVG code yielded:

  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      4.9622E-01     1.4306E+00    3.7641     6.8937E-01     93.1734
  2 - 1      1.5126E-01     1.1739E+00    3.2591     1.9102E-01    186.3468
  3 - 2      9.7263E-03     1.1867E-01    3.3985     1.9038E-02    279.5202
  4 - 3      1.8775E-04     3.0330E-03    4.9098     1.3837E-03    372.6936
  5 - 4      4.9133E-06     9.8582E-05    6.5180     7.3187E-05    465.8670

the 3-2 transition is optically thin in the envelope.

for the core, we have:

  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      3.0117E-01     3.5027E+00    6.8832     3.7175E+00     93.1734
  2 - 1      1.5728E-01     5.6881E+00    6.5848     2.7480E+00    186.3468
  3 - 2      4.0439E-02     2.7026E+00    5.4373     1.0723E+00    279.5202
  4 - 3      3.4297E-03     3.2552E-01    4.8612     1.2205E-01    372.6936
  5 - 4      8.6544E-05     1.0304E-02    5.8425     5.0441E-03    465.8670

Therefore we are mostly sensitive to the core with N2H+(3-2)

If we now vary the kinetic temperature by 4%, we obtain for the core:

  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      2.9142E-01     3.2915E+00    7.1707     3.9580E+00     93.1734
  2 - 1      1.5620E-01     5.5458E+00    6.8447     2.9704E+00    186.3468
  3 - 2      4.2288E-02     2.8008E+00    5.6490     1.2042E+00    279.5202
  4 - 3      3.9341E-03     3.7259E-01    4.9690     1.4894E-01    372.6936
  5 - 4      1.0752E-04     1.2796E-02    5.8671     6.3613E-03    465.8670

therefore the antenna temperature of the N2H+(3-2) transition varies by 10% 
for
a 5% variation of Tk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we carry out the same analysis for CO isotopes (C18O canonical abundance
of 2e-7, Frerking at al. 1982, and C18O/C17O~4), we obtain:

for the envelope:

  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      2.5433E-01     1.5081E-01    10.3564     9.8996E-01    109.7828
  2 - 1      1.5291E-01     3.1458E-01    8.9545     1.2089E+00    219.5657
  3 - 2      4.7136E-02     1.8020E-01    8.1279     4.2750E-01    329.3485
  4 - 3      6.7414E-03     3.7505E-02    7.6957     5.3314E-02    439.1314
  5 - 4      4.3588E-04     3.1412E-03    7.5649     2.6148E-03    548.9142  

for the core (we suppose a depletion of a factor 100 for the core):

  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      3.3173E-01     6.1749E-02    7.0076     2.2921E-01    109.7828
  2 - 1      1.5640E-01     8.5856E-02    6.9737     2.2763E-01    219.5657
  3 - 2      3.4513E-02     3.2707E-02    6.9559     5.6981E-02    329.3485
  4 - 3      3.5570E-03     4.7692E-03    6.9516     5.0405E-03    439.1314
  5 - 4      1.7155E-04     2.9526E-04    6.9523     1.7946E-04    548.9142

the envelope is dominant.

For a variation of Tk of ~10%, we obtain in the core:

  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      3.1235E-01     5.5470E-02    7.5089     2.3243E-01    109.7828
  2 - 1      1.5484E-01     8.2448E-02    7.4719     2.5208E-01    219.5657
  3 - 2      3.7791E-02     3.5145E-02    7.4494     7.2729E-02    329.3485
  4 - 3      4.5274E-03     6.0029E-03    7.4383     7.8305E-03    439.1314
  5 - 4      2.6627E-04     4.5537E-04    7.4273     3.5511E-04    548.9142

Therefore, an error of 10% on Ta gives an error of 10% on Tk for the (2-1) 
transtition.
For the (3-2) transition, an error of 10% on Ta gives an error of 3% on Tk. 

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: J. Mangum and A. Wootten

DRSP number(s): 2.1.3

DRSP name(s): Kinetic Temperature Structure in Protostars and YSOs


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation:

   - Measurements of the kinetic temperature using molecular spectral 
     line emission from molecules requires one to compare the emission 
     strengths from multiple transitions at multiple
     frequencies/bands. The largest source of error in these line
     strength ratio comparisons is the absolute calibration accuracy.
     Therefore, we need good discrimination of density/column density.
     We also need to know if a line or lines suffers saturation,
     which will skew the ratio.  This will require good accuracy
     between bands, and good absolute accuracy.


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  5%

   Please give short motivation:

   - This is essentially the same as the relative calibration accuracy
     for a line ratio experiment.


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?  5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   5%

   Please give short motivation:

   - As this is a line ratio experiment, good relative calibration
     accuracy between lines, often measured in different receiver
     bands, is required.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

   - N/A


5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: J. Mangum and A. Wootten

DRSP number(s): 2.1.5

DRSP name(s): Spatial Density Probe Comparison in Protostars and YSOs


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation:

   - Measurements of the spatial density using molecular spectral line
     emission from molecules requires one to compare the emission
     strengths from multiple transitions at multiple
     frequencies/bands. The largest source of error in these line 
     strength ratio comparisons is the absolute calibration accuracy.
     Therefore, the highest precision in the individual measurements,
     which are often obtained using different receiver bands, is
     needed.  We will essentially want to measure the density and
     abundance profiles in our target sources.


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  5%

   Please give short motivation:

   - This is essentially the same as the relative calibration accuracy
     for a line ratio experiment.


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?  5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   5%

   Please give short motivation:

   - As this is a line ratio experiment, good relative calibration
     accuracy between lines, often measured in different receiver
     bands, is required.


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

   - N/A


5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: Phil Myers, T. Bourke, C. De Vries (CfA)

DRSP number(s): 2.1.8

DRSP name(s): Infall velocity structure of starless cores

         My proposed program to compare line profiles from candidate
infalling starless cores should not have any significant absolute
calibration accuracy requirements, since it is the shape that matters
most.  The relative calibration accuracy which matters is across the
line profile itself, ie across a few hundred kHz at most.  There the
relative calibration accuracy should be smaller than the uncertainty
due to noise.  For S/N of 100 which we presently reach in studies with
the IRAM 30-m, we would want the relative calibration accuracy across
the line to be smaller than 1/100, ie 1%.  This should be easy to
reach in such small bandwidths, I would think.

         A related point is the absolute FREQUENCY calibration
accuracy--very important in comparison of narrow spectral lines.  How
well does the spectrometer assign velocity to a particular spectral
channel (assuming the rest frequency is known to sufficient accuracy)?
This absolute accuracy must be smaller than the smallest channel width
used, in order to compare the velocity, and velocity structure, from
one line to the next.
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: J. Di Francesco (NRC-HIA)

DRSP number(s): 2.1.9

DRSP name(s): Envelope Structure of Intermediate-Mass YSOs


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your science 
   goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  5% for Band 3, 10% for Bands 6 and 9

   Please give short motivation:

   Determination of radial structure of envelopes (e.g., "p", the
   exponent of a radial power-law function) is more dependent upon the
   observed radial profile of the emission than the absolute flux
   values.  Studies by Shirley et al. (2002) and Young et al. (2003)
   used one-dimensional RT codes to model continuum emission from
   various Class 0 and I sources and fit "p" through *normalized*
   angularly-averaged radial intensity profiles.  These studies found
   that simultaneous SED fitting was less influential in determining
   "p".  Their methods could fit "p" within +/- 0.2, although other
   sources of un- certainty (ISRF strength, presence of a disk) could
   modify "p" dramatically , e.g., ~0.5.  Their JCMT data had flux
   uncertainties of ~10% at 850 microns and ~40% at 450 microns.  We
   note, however, that their determinations of the envelope mass and
   source luminosities are dependent upon the SED.  Improvements to
   the accuracies of low and high frequency flux data by factors of
   only 2-4 (e.g., 5% at Band 3 and 10% for Bands 6 and 9) for the
   case of ALMA observations of intermediate-mass YSO envelopes would
   likely improve determinations of envelope mass, source
   luminosities and envelope "p" - the main science goals.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5% for Band 3, 10% for Bands 6 and 9

   Please give short motivation:
 
   These objects are not expected to have submillimetre or millimetre
   fluxes that are variable on short (monthly) timescales, so the
   precision of the observations need only match the relatively low
   accuracy quoted above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? N/A

   Between bands: 1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5% for Band 3, 10% for Bands 6 and 9

   Please give short motivation:

   Again, since the SED (i.e., relative fluxes) is less important than
   radial intensity distributions in determining "p" through models,
   relative calib- ration accuracy that is superior to absolute
   calibration accuracy is not necessary.  If, however, one wanted to
   find variations of dust opacities within the sources, higher
   relative calibration accuracy may be needed, but the requirements
   for that are not well known.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

   not applicable

5. Any other comments:

   This program depends on making mosaics of extended submillimetre
   and millimeter emission.  Such mosaics are made generally by
   stepping through a series of pre-defined sky positions separated by
   the Nyquist sampling distance or less.  Gain stability *over the
   time required to make such a mosaic* (20-30 minutes?) is crucial to
   obtain accurate visibilities across the field.  Since this project
   depends more on radial intensity profiles and not absolute fluxes,
   gain instabilities over the timescale of a pass through a mosaic
   could impact the science.  Such time-related requirements are not
   specifically questioned in this survey, but it is hoped that the
   gain stability can be specified within some limits in the future.

   Moreover, Young et al. (2003) describe how the beam shape of the
   JCMT over time affected their 450 micron observations due to
   thermal variations of the telescope (pointing and beam size).  It
   is likely that the ALMA tele- scopes will also encounter this
   problem with higher frequencies affected more than lower
   frequencies.  Since this DRSP program involves making mosaics at
   high frequencies, untracked variations of the pointing and beam
   size will have a dramatic effect on the science.  It is hoped that
   pointing and beam size will be monitored regularly by the ALMA
   Observatory.

 
Back to index
 


 
>Name author: Gueth Frederic
>
>DRSP number(s):  2.2.10   
>
>DRSP name(s): The internal structure of the BHR71 outflow
>
>
>1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
>   science goals?
>
>   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
>
>  
>
ANSWER: 5%

>   Please give short motivation:
>
>  
>
I don't think this study justifies the highest possible absolute
calibration.

>2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
>   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
>   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
>   archival value of your data.
>
>   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
>
>  
>
ANSWER: 5%

>   Please give short motivation:
>
>  
>
I don't think this study justifies the highest possible absolute
calibration.

>3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
>   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
>   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
>   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
>
>   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?  
>  
>
ANSWER: 5%

>   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  
>  
>
ANSWER: 1-3 %

>   Please give short motivation:   
>  
>
Relative calibration within one band is not critical for this project
(but may obviously be important for other projects).

Relative calibration between receiver bands is critical for this
project, since multi-line analysis of CO and SiO are proposed.
It is therefore required to have the best possible relative
calibration between the observations of the various lines, here
with bands 3, 6, and 7.

>4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
>
>
>5. Any other comments:
>
>  
>
This project requires adding short-spacings (with ACA and single-dish).
The relative calibration of the three types of observations (ALMA, ACA,
SD) must obviously be compatible with the above mentionned specs, ie
better than 5%.

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: Wootten et al.

DRSP number(s): 2.2.4 

DRSP name(s): Infall toward protostars


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   5% 

   Please give short motivation:

Science goal: Detect molecular line absorption against the
continuum of a disk surrounding a protostar.  The program is based on
the detection of formaldehyde at 1.3 mm in IRAS4A by Di Francesco et
al. 2001, ApJ 562, 770. Using IRAM, they detected H$_2$CO absorption
at 1.3 mm of $T_b = 10$ K against a continuum of 3000 mJy with a
velocity resolution of 0.16 km/s.  This provides the best evidence for
infall, but it is currently only possible for the few brightest
sources. To generalize the result and to study the infall velocity
field in detail, we would like to do similar experiments on 30 sources
with 10 times weaker disks with a velocity resolution of 0.05 km/s.

Calibration accuracy:
This is basically an experiment to measure the line profile towards a 
continuum source.  The measurement of the continuum level to a certain
accuracy will give the optical depth profile of the line.  Inversion of
the optical depth profile to a density profile through the use of a
radiative transfer model will then give the scientific result--the
structure of the infall region and its relationship to the rest of the
source.  Errors will almost certainly be dominated by the model geometry
in this process.  For the simple two layer model of Di Francesco et al.,
an error in optical depth will lead directly to an error in infall velocity.
A calibration accuracy of 5% is justified.  If the
error were greater, say 10%, measurement of infall velocity and the accretion
rate would both be biassed.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

1-3%

   Please give short motivation:
The line and continuum measurements should be made simultaneously.
Here by repeatability I specifically mean that the fluxes measured by the
ACA and the main array should be within this level of agreement.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?

5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
Not applicable.

   Please give short motivation:
The experiment is pretty simple--one line, one band, many sources.  

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

None

5. Any other comments:

None

 
Back to index
 


 
>             Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
>             ==============================================
> 
>             Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
>             ========================================================
> 
> 
> Name author:	Debra Shepherd 
> 
> DRSP number(s): 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.9
> 
> DRSP name(s):
	Energetics of the HH 80-81 outflow
	Survey of massive molecular outflows
	Survey of the central fields in massive molecular outflows
	Deep integration on the massive jet source HH80-81
> 
> 1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals?

>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?   
	5-10% is fine for all DRSPs

>    Please give short motivation:
 	2.2.6,7,8 are all surveys to get global properties.  Mass and 
	energy estimates all suffer from assumptions that introduce 
	errors much larger than 10% - thus, 10% is fine.  

	2.2.9 is a deep integration on one source - comparison between 
	lines will be important, especially comparing radio recombination 
	lines of in/outflowing ionized gas near the protostar with 
	molecular gas in the disk and starting to be entrained in the flow.  
	I would prefer 5% calibration accuracy but this is for bands 8 & 9 
	- a challenging frequency range.  I expect that, if 5% is not 
	realistic, I will be very happy with 10% absolute calibration 
	accuracy.  

> 2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
>    to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
>    range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
>    archival value of your data.
 
>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?  
	5-10% 

>    Please give short motivation:
 	See above. 

> 3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
>    either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
>    (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 
>    Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?  
	5% for DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8
	3-5% for DRSP 2.2.9

>    Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
	3-5% for DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9 (other programs use only 1 band) 

>    Please give short motivation:
	DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7: to get good optical depth estimates 
		and SED slopes in one band. 
	DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9: to get good line ratios between bands and 
		compare ionized gas, molecular gas, shocked gas components 
		in the infall/outflow/disk close to the protostar. 

> 4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
	N/A


> 5. Any other comments:
	no. 

 
Back to index
 


 
>             Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
>             ==============================================
> 
>             Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
>             ========================================================
> 
> 
> Name author:	Debra Shepherd 
> 
> DRSP number(s): 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.9
> 
> DRSP name(s):
	Energetics of the HH 80-81 outflow
	Survey of massive molecular outflows
	Survey of the central fields in massive molecular outflows
	Deep integration on the massive jet source HH80-81
> 
> 1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals?

>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?   
	5-10% is fine for all DRSPs

>    Please give short motivation:
 	2.2.6,7,8 are all surveys to get global properties.  Mass and 
	energy estimates all suffer from assumptions that introduce 
	errors much larger than 10% - thus, 10% is fine.  

	2.2.9 is a deep integration on one source - comparison between 
	lines will be important, especially comparing radio recombination 
	lines of in/outflowing ionized gas near the protostar with 
	molecular gas in the disk and starting to be entrained in the flow.  
	I would prefer 5% calibration accuracy but this is for bands 8 & 9 
	- a challenging frequency range.  I expect that, if 5% is not 
	realistic, I will be very happy with 10% absolute calibration 
	accuracy.  

> 2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
>    to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
>    range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
>    archival value of your data.
 
>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?  
	5-10% 

>    Please give short motivation:
 	See above. 

> 3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
>    either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
>    (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 
>    Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?  
	5% for DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8
	3-5% for DRSP 2.2.9

>    Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
	3-5% for DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9 (other programs use only 1 band) 

>    Please give short motivation:
	DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7: to get good optical depth estimates 
		and SED slopes in one band. 
	DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9: to get good line ratios between bands and 
		compare ionized gas, molecular gas, shocked gas components 
		in the infall/outflow/disk close to the protostar. 

> 4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
	N/A


> 5. Any other comments:
	no. 

 
Back to index
 


 
>             Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
>             ==============================================
> 
>             Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
>             ========================================================
> 
> 
> Name author:	Debra Shepherd 
> 
> DRSP number(s): 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.9
> 
> DRSP name(s):
	Energetics of the HH 80-81 outflow
	Survey of massive molecular outflows
	Survey of the central fields in massive molecular outflows
	Deep integration on the massive jet source HH80-81
> 
> 1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals?

>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?   
	5-10% is fine for all DRSPs

>    Please give short motivation:
 	2.2.6,7,8 are all surveys to get global properties.  Mass and 
	energy estimates all suffer from assumptions that introduce 
	errors much larger than 10% - thus, 10% is fine.  

	2.2.9 is a deep integration on one source - comparison between 
	lines will be important, especially comparing radio recombination 
	lines of in/outflowing ionized gas near the protostar with 
	molecular gas in the disk and starting to be entrained in the flow.  
	I would prefer 5% calibration accuracy but this is for bands 8 & 9 
	- a challenging frequency range.  I expect that, if 5% is not 
	realistic, I will be very happy with 10% absolute calibration 
	accuracy.  

> 2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
>    to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
>    range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
>    archival value of your data.
 
>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?  
	5-10% 

>    Please give short motivation:
 	See above. 

> 3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
>    either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
>    (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 
>    Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?  
	5% for DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8
	3-5% for DRSP 2.2.9

>    Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
	3-5% for DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9 (other programs use only 1 band) 

>    Please give short motivation:
	DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7: to get good optical depth estimates 
		and SED slopes in one band. 
	DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9: to get good line ratios between bands and 
		compare ionized gas, molecular gas, shocked gas components 
		in the infall/outflow/disk close to the protostar. 

> 4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
	N/A


> 5. Any other comments:
	no. 

 
Back to index
 


 
>             Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
>             ==============================================
> 
>             Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
>             ========================================================
> 
> 
> Name author:	Debra Shepherd 
> 
> DRSP number(s): 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.9
> 
> DRSP name(s):
	Energetics of the HH 80-81 outflow
	Survey of massive molecular outflows
	Survey of the central fields in massive molecular outflows
	Deep integration on the massive jet source HH80-81
> 
> 1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals?

>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?   
	5-10% is fine for all DRSPs

>    Please give short motivation:
 	2.2.6,7,8 are all surveys to get global properties.  Mass and 
	energy estimates all suffer from assumptions that introduce 
	errors much larger than 10% - thus, 10% is fine.  

	2.2.9 is a deep integration on one source - comparison between 
	lines will be important, especially comparing radio recombination 
	lines of in/outflowing ionized gas near the protostar with 
	molecular gas in the disk and starting to be entrained in the flow.  
	I would prefer 5% calibration accuracy but this is for bands 8 & 9 
	- a challenging frequency range.  I expect that, if 5% is not 
	realistic, I will be very happy with 10% absolute calibration 
	accuracy.  

> 2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
>    to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
>    range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
>    archival value of your data.
 
>    1-3%, 5% or 10%?  
	5-10% 

>    Please give short motivation:
 	See above. 

> 3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
>    science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
>    either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
>    (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 
>    Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?  
	5% for DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8
	3-5% for DRSP 2.2.9

>    Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
	3-5% for DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9 (other programs use only 1 band) 

>    Please give short motivation:
	DRSPs 2.2.6, 2.2.7: to get good optical depth estimates 
		and SED slopes in one band. 
	DRSPs 2.2.8, 2.2.9: to get good line ratios between bands and 
		compare ionized gas, molecular gas, shocked gas components 
		in the infall/outflow/disk close to the protostar. 

> 4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
	N/A


> 5. Any other comments:
	no. 

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: van Dishoeck et al.

DRSP number(s): 2.3.1.

DRSP name(s): Chemical surveys of hot cores


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   10%

   Please give short motivation:

   Absolute abundances accurate to 10% are good enough for comparison with
   chemical models; relative abundances and line strengths should be more
   accurate, however (see below)


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   5%

   Please give short motivation:

   To combine data from various projects taken several years apart
   (e.g. combine CS 7-6 map with an archival CS 5-4 map), repeatability over
   long time scales is very important


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 5%

   Between receiver bands:   5%

   Please give short motivation:

   Relative calibration accuracy of 5% is required for various reasons, e.g.:

   - determine the gas density structure independent from the dust density
     structure, e.g. through comparison of line ratios. See example CS 7-6/5-4
     in the "Examples for calibration specification" document: an accuracy 
     of 5% gives a power-law index accurate to 0.05

   - determine whether jumps appear in the abundances in the inner hot cores,
     and distinguish between various models (e.g. envelope + disk, envelope
     + hot core, ...). These abundance jumps often manifest themselves as
     subtle increases in the intensity of selected lines. See examples
     for H2CO in the low-mass protostar IRAS 16293-2422 by Schoier et al. 
     (2004, A&A 418, 185), Table 3. 


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

   None

5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
 >            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
 >            ==============================================
 >
 >            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
 >            ========================================================
 >
 >
 >Name author: K. Tatematsu
 >
 >DRSP number(s):1.7.8, 1.7.11, 2.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3,
 >
 >DRSP name(s):
Gas densities and dynamics in central regions
The CO-to-H2 conversion factor
Depletion of molecules in low-mass cores
Structure of the Molecular Gas shocked by SNR
SNR-cloud interaction in the LMC
TOO: new SN

 >1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals?
 >
 >   5%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:

We like to have better calibration compared with current radio telescopes,
but < 3% accuracy is not a must for these plans.

 >2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
 >   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
 >   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
 >   archival value of your data.
 >
 >   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
 >   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
 >   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 >
 >   Within one receiver band: 3%
 >
 >   Between receiver bands:   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
 >
 >
 >5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:  Melvyn Wright

DRSP number(s): 2.3.3

DRSP name(s):  Chemical differentiation in sf-regions


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

   Please give short motivation:

5% should be adequate for most line ratios. Of course on would like to
do better
if possible for high SNR cases.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?

5% should be adequate for most line ratios. Of course on would like to
do better
if possible for high SNR cases, esp maser variability, but we can
probably finesse
this by ref to other lines within the PB.

   Please give short motivation:


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?
5% should be adequate for most line ratios.

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
5% should be adequate for most line ratios.

   Please give short motivation:


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Back to index
 





 

DRSP:  ``Disks around young stars'' calibration requirements
DRPSs: 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.7, 2.4.9
Author: Anne Dutrey


ABSOLUTE CALIBRATION:
=====================

	An absolute calibration of 10 % can be consider as acceptable
if the repeatability and the relative calibration reach 3 % of
precision.


REPEATABILITY:
==============

A repeatability of 3% is desirable. We would like to be able to have an 
absolute reference from one observation to another one in order to reduce the 
dispersion of the calibration error (the only correct way to proceed for 
snapshot observations).


RELATIVE CALIBRATION:
=====================


	- DUST:

The goal here is to determine the variations of the dust absorption 
coefficient with frequency in order to estimate the particle sizes. If we want to be 
sensitive to variations in the properties of dust particles with frequency, 
we need to sample the best we can the frequency range. This means that we 
have enough spectral resolution to be sensitive to possible significant 
variations of the spectral energy distribution between 82 and 720 GHz. This 
can be achieved by measuring the spectral index of the dust (or the continuum 
flux)  within each frequency band, at the edges. The variations of the 
spectral index between 2 measurements at 2 different frequencies are between 
0.6 and 1.1, if we suppose an error of 10% on both continuum flux 
measurements. Clearly, such an error on the spectral index is not acceptable  
and a relative calibration uncertainty of maximum 3% is needed. In the 
calculation, we assumed that the emission is optically thin (alpha=2+beta, 
where alpha is the spectral index of the SED and beta is the spectral index 
of the dust absorption coefficient). Equivalently, this calculation is also 
valid if thanks to the angular resolution of ALMA, we are able to measure the 
size of the inner optically thick part.

This calculation is relevant from class -I (pre-stellar cores) to class II 
(disks) objects.


	- MOLECULAR LINES:

	We take CCH because this is a radical characteristic of chemistry in 
photo-dissociation region. Photo-dissociation is thought to occur at disk surface, 
possibly enhancing the abundance of molcules such as CCH or CN.   
However, this kind of caculations is representative of many molecules in disks
and elsewhere (eg PDRs). 

	We show below that identical antenna temperatures (within 10 %) can be obtained
for 2 transitions of CCH for quite different physical conditions and abundances 
applicable to circumstellar disks.



====================================================================
Initial conditions:
==================
Standard Density Law is n(H2,r,z) = 3e8*exp(-(z/H)^2) where n100 (r=100 AU) = 3e8 H2/cm3 
Kinetic Temperature assumes a vertical temperature gradient (see d'Alessio et al., 1998)
Values of Tk and n(h2) based on DM Tau observations (Dartois, Dutrey, Guilloteau, 2003, AA, 399, 773 
Total value of the H2 column density = 3e23 cm^-2 

Escape probability code: (Castets et al., 1990, AA 234, 469)  
===================================================================== 

RUN 1) 	At 1H Tk = 20K & CD = 3e13

********************************************
column density         =  3E+13        cm-2
kinetic temperature    =  20.000       K
h2 density             =  1E+08        cm-3
linewidth              =  0.200        Km/s
number of levels used  =  6
background temperature =  2.700        K
helium abundance       =  0.1
********************************************
  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      1.0385E-01     1.4917E+00    19.6817     1.2814E+01     87.3487
  2 - 1      8.3929E-02     4.2743E+00    20.1706     1.5654E+01    
  3 - 2      5.5385E-02     5.8496E+00    19.7961     1.4008E+01    262.0462
  4 - 3      2.9340E-02     4.9657E+00    20.1379     1.2780E+01    349.3950
  5 - 4      1.2760E-02     3.1695E+00    19.2416     1.0172E+01    


Calculation of X(CCH), X = 3e13/3e23 = 1e-10
============================================
 
RUN 2)  	At H=2.5, Tk = 25K, CD = 3e13

********************************************
column density         =  3E+13        cm-2
kinetic temperature    =  25.000       K
h2 density             =  6E+05        cm-3
linewidth              =  0.200        Km/s
number of levels used  =  6
background temperature =  2.700        K
helium abundance       =  0.1
********************************************
  TRAN        POP/2J+1         TAU         TEX          TA         FREQ(GHz)

  1 - 0      1.1154E-01     1.3851E+00    23.1156     1.4962E+01     87.3487
  2 - 1      9.3036E-02     4.7347E+00    20.1884     1.5753E+01    
  3 - 2      6.1415E-02     7.0088E+00    17.7274     1.2045E+01    262.0462
  4 - 3      3.0211E-02     6.3535E+00    13.8425     7.0648E+00    349.3950
  5 - 4      8.9961E-03     3.0330E+00    9.0790     2.1932E+00


Abundance:
	The column density of CCH is obtained around the scale height were
	we assume the molecules are located, say between 1.5 and 2.5 here.
	So for the abundance, one should compare with the column density of H2
	above that scale height, i.e. correct for the error function tail of the
	H2 distribution:
Calculation of X(CCH), X = 3e13/3e23/(1-erf(1.5)) = 3e-9
	or X = 3e13/3e23/(1-erf(2.5)) = 2.5e-7

===================================

Hence the two cases above produce similar (1-0) and (3-2) line intensities, but differ
	- in location above the disk plane by 1.5 scale height 
	- in temperature by 5 K
	- in density by a factor of 200
	- and mostly in abundance by factor about 30 - 3000 !


Our example shows that we are not able with two transitions (1-0 and 3-2) to decide 
which are the excitation conditions and in which part of the disk the molecules reside. 

We are aware that this model is an oversimplification of the physics of disks.
A more complete model necessarily includes more parameters for the same number 
of observational constrains. Therefore more transitions and 
a higher precision ( << 10 %) on the calibration are required.

===================================	   


 
Back to index
 



 
Name author:     Benz      

DRSP number(s):  3.1.1   

DRSP name(s):    Structure and Dynamics of the Chromosphere

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?        5%

   Please give short motivation:  
We will observe at different bands in the continuum and model the temperature at different heights.


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  10%

   Please give short motivation:
The temperature will vary in time.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?   3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?    5%

   Please give short motivation:
The goal is to observe temperature variations in time and space.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
None

5. Any other comments:
The proposed observations have explorartory nature. Higher accuracy may be highly appreciated later.
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:       Benz

DRSP number(s):    3.1.2   
DRSP name(s):      Solar Radio Recombination Lines


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?    10%

   Please give short motivation: The proposed observations have
   explorartory nature. Higher accuracy may be highly appreciated
   later.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?    10%

   Please give short motivation:
The line flux is variable in time and space.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?    10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?     10%

   Please give short motivation: The proposed observations have
explorartory nature. Higher accuracy may be highly appreciated later.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): 1%

5. Any other comments: Polarization accuracy of a few percent is
necessary to observe Zeeman splitting. This is a later extension of
the initial program.
 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author:
   M. Guedel

DRSP number(s):
   3.2.1

DRSP name(s):
   Evolution of Magnetic Activity in Main Sequence Stars


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?      --> 10%

   Please give short motivation:

   The level of chromospheric emission depends on various factors
   such as the temperature at which the emission becomes optically thick, the
   surface filling factor, etc.   We are looking for overall trends in
   a wide variety of stars. 10% is thus sufficient for absolute calibration.


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   -> 10%

   Please give short motivation:
   
   The emission is likely to be variable on short time scales by much
   more than 10%. Repeated observations may be valuable to obtain
   a characteristic mean.  The long-term variability, by whatever amount,
   will be scientifically interesting by itself.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?   ->   10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?    ->   10%

   Please give short motivation:

   Models for the flux contributions will be rather coarse.
   


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

   (sources will most likely be rather weakly polarized, perhaps a few 
    %.)

5. Any other comments:

    N/A

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author:
   M. Guedel

DRSP number(s):
   3.2.2

DRSP name(s):
   Magnetic Energy Release and High-Energy Particles in Stellar Atmospheres
   


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?      --> 10%

   Please give short motivation:

   Flares produce a large range of radio/mm fluxes, and they also depend on the 
   spectral flux distribution that itself dpeends on the electron 
   distribution. 10% is sufficient for such measurements also given the
   probable fast variability. If simultaneous low-frequency observations (e.g.,
   from the VLA) arw available, then a 10% accuracy (rather than worse)
   would be desirable. 
 


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   N/A

   Please give short motivation:

   The fluxes to be studied here are largely unpredictable and rapidly variable.



3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?    ->  5%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?     ->  5%

   Please give short motivation:

   Spectral shapes are important to assess the energy distribution of 
    the electrons. 

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

   5% polarization accuracy would be good to have for flare gyrosynchrotron
   (or synchrotron) emission, with 10% being still quite useful. Polarization 
   degrees of several tens of percent are possible although unlikely. 


5. Any other comments:

   N/A

 
Back to index
 


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

            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Rachel Osten

DRSP number(s): 3.2.5

DRSP name(s): mm observations of nonthermal emission from active stars


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  
   10%

   Please give short motivation:
   Motivation for 10% absolute calibration accuracy is (1) detection and
   (2) evidence for variability at factors of several level.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   10%
   Please give short motivation:
   Liberal 10% limit will allow determination of low level variations

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?
   5%
   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   (only 1 band was requested for this proposal)
   Please give short motivation:
   A 5% accuracy will allow constraints on spectrals slopes at the edges
   of band 3 between 86 and 116 GHz.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
  Circular polarization is expected, which can be appreciable at cm wavelengths
  (V/I -> 30%).  Ability to determine V/I to a few percent is desirable.

5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


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

            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy              
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Rachel Osten

DRSP number(s): 3.2.6

DRSP name(s):  mm survey of stellar disk emission from late-type giants and
  supergiants


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   5%
   Please give short motivation:
    A 5% absolute calibration accuracy is desired to discern 
    intensity/temperature asymmetries across the stellar disk

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   1-3% 
   Please give short motivation:
   1-3 % repeatability is desired to search for low-level stellar pulsations

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%?

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%?
   5%
   Please give short motivation:
   The atmospheric modelling is sensitive to the temperature gradient 
   between bands, and it is necessary to constrain this observable  to~5%
   in order to get the best model fit.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
 >            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
 >            ==============================================
 >
 >            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
 >            ========================================================
 >
 >
 >Name author: K. Tatematsu
 >
 >DRSP number(s):1.7.8, 1.7.11, 2.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3,
 >
 >DRSP name(s):
Gas densities and dynamics in central regions
The CO-to-H2 conversion factor
Depletion of molecules in low-mass cores
Structure of the Molecular Gas shocked by SNR
SNR-cloud interaction in the LMC
TOO: new SN

 >1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals?
 >
 >   5%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:

We like to have better calibration compared with current radio telescopes,
but < 3% accuracy is not a must for these plans.

 >2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
 >   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
 >   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
 >   archival value of your data.
 >
 >   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
 >   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
 >   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 >
 >   Within one receiver band: 3%
 >
 >   Between receiver bands:   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
 >
 >
 >5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
 >            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
 >            ==============================================
 >
 >            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
 >            ========================================================
 >
 >
 >Name author: K. Tatematsu
 >
 >DRSP number(s):1.7.8, 1.7.11, 2.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3,
 >
 >DRSP name(s):
Gas densities and dynamics in central regions
The CO-to-H2 conversion factor
Depletion of molecules in low-mass cores
Structure of the Molecular Gas shocked by SNR
SNR-cloud interaction in the LMC
TOO: new SN

 >1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals?
 >
 >   5%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:

We like to have better calibration compared with current radio telescopes,
but < 3% accuracy is not a must for these plans.

 >2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
 >   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
 >   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
 >   archival value of your data.
 >
 >   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
 >   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
 >   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 >
 >   Within one receiver band: 3%
 >
 >   Between receiver bands:   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
 >
 >
 >5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
 >            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
 >            ==============================================
 >
 >            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
 >            ========================================================
 >
 >
 >Name author: K. Tatematsu
 >
 >DRSP number(s):1.7.8, 1.7.11, 2.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3,
 >
 >DRSP name(s):
Gas densities and dynamics in central regions
The CO-to-H2 conversion factor
Depletion of molecules in low-mass cores
Structure of the Molecular Gas shocked by SNR
SNR-cloud interaction in the LMC
TOO: new SN

 >1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals?
 >
 >   5%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:

We like to have better calibration compared with current radio telescopes,
but < 3% accuracy is not a must for these plans.

 >2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
 >   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
 >   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
 >   archival value of your data.
 >
 >   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
 >   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
 >   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
 >   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
 >
 >   Within one receiver band: 3%
 >
 >   Between receiver bands:   3%
 >
 >   Please give short motivation:
 >
 >
 >4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
 >
 >
 >5. Any other comments:
 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:Van Dyk, Weiler, Turner

DRSP number(s):1.8.5

DRSP name(s):ToO Observing of Radio Supernovae


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequencies,
   comparison with VLA data


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy,
   data taken at different epochs


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? within band NA for this
project

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

Light curves of RSN do not require 5% accuracy; the spectra (alpha) do.
Spectra change rapidly in the early evolution of RSN, over hours and days,
so they will be an integral part of ToO observations.

Differences in alpha (flux proportional to nu^alpha) of ~0.5 are
significant. Spectra
are important for the interpretation of the particle acceleration/source of
opacity/progenitor object. Uncertainties of 5% in each flux lead to an
uncertainty
of 0.1 in alpha at alpha ~0.

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author:Van Dyk, Weiler, Turner

DRSP number(s):1.8.5

DRSP name(s):Monitoring of Radio Supernovae


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy, different frequencies,
   comparison with VLA data


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy,
   data taken at different epochs


3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? within band NA for this
project

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? 5%

   Please give short motivation: spectral accuracy


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:

Light curves of RSN do not require 5% accuracy; the spectra (alpha) do.

Differences in alpha (flux proportional to nu^alpha) of ~0.5 are
significant. Spectra
are important for the interpretation of the particle acceleration/source of
opacity/progenitor object. Uncertainties of 5% in each flux lead to an
uncertainty
of 0.1 in alpha at alpha ~0.

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
==============================================
Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
========================================================

Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.1.1 to 4.1.8
DRSP name(s): Planetary atmospheres

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

10 % absolute is generally sufficient. In many occasions (DRSP 4.1.1 to 
4.1.5),
line/continuum ratios will be used.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . For a few DRSP (4.1.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.7) variability studies are important,
are a repeatibility of about 5 % is desired

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is needed. Quite often, science is contained in line ratios (e.g.
to constrain line optical depth, etc...). The 5 % figure is valid
both within one receiver band and between receiver bands.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler, M. Gurwell

DRSP number(s): 4.1.6

DRSP name(s): Mapping the continuum emission from the giant planets

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  this accuracy is needed in order
   to place meaningful constraints on the abundances.  this will also
   compare favorably to cassini and future spacecraft accuracies.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: the time variability needs to be
   tracked to this accuracy.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  the spectral energy distribution gives
   the abundances as a function of depth within the atmosphere, so is
   needed with high accuracy.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: E. Lellouch
DRSP number(s): 4.2.1
DRSP name(s): Albedo, size and surface properties of TNO

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % is sufficient. This means 2.5 % uncertainty on size.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
to reach your science goals?

5 % . Lightcurves (ie time variations of continuum flux) will be searched for

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
science goals?

5 % .

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable): N/A

5. Any other comments

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4; 4.2.5; 4.2.6

DRSP name(s): Mapping the surfaces of the Moon, Mercury and Mars;
              Mapping the surfaces of large icy bodies;
              Structure and composition of Saturn's rings;
              Mapping the surfaces of larger asteroids;
              Sizes and albedoes of NEAs

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: without good absolute accuracy, meaningful
   constraints on real physical temperatures and surface and subsurface
   properties will have limited value.  for the rings, placing real
   constraints on size distribution and composition needs this accuracy.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: similar to the atmospheric sounding above,
   the SED gives the distribution of properties with depth, and is needed
   to high accuracy.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   the polarization angle can be calibrated from the data itself, except
   in the case of the Moon and possibly Saturn.  need to get to .1% or so 
   pol'n amplitude accuracy.  unimportant for 4.2.6 (signal too weak).

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4; 4.2.5; 4.2.6

DRSP name(s): Mapping the surfaces of the Moon, Mercury and Mars;
              Mapping the surfaces of large icy bodies;
              Structure and composition of Saturn's rings;
              Mapping the surfaces of larger asteroids;
              Sizes and albedoes of NEAs

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: without good absolute accuracy, meaningful
   constraints on real physical temperatures and surface and subsurface
   properties will have limited value.  for the rings, placing real
   constraints on size distribution and composition needs this accuracy.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: similar to the atmospheric sounding above,
   the SED gives the distribution of properties with depth, and is needed
   to high accuracy.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   the polarization angle can be calibrated from the data itself, except
   in the case of the Moon and possibly Saturn.  need to get to .1% or so 
   pol'n amplitude accuracy.  unimportant for 4.2.6 (signal too weak).

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4; 4.2.5; 4.2.6

DRSP name(s): Mapping the surfaces of the Moon, Mercury and Mars;
              Mapping the surfaces of large icy bodies;
              Structure and composition of Saturn's rings;
              Mapping the surfaces of larger asteroids;
              Sizes and albedoes of NEAs

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: without good absolute accuracy, meaningful
   constraints on real physical temperatures and surface and subsurface
   properties will have limited value.  for the rings, placing real
   constraints on size distribution and composition needs this accuracy.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: similar to the atmospheric sounding above,
   the SED gives the distribution of properties with depth, and is needed
   to high accuracy.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   the polarization angle can be calibrated from the data itself, except
   in the case of the Moon and possibly Saturn.  need to get to .1% or so 
   pol'n amplitude accuracy.  unimportant for 4.2.6 (signal too weak).

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4; 4.2.5; 4.2.6

DRSP name(s): Mapping the surfaces of the Moon, Mercury and Mars;
              Mapping the surfaces of large icy bodies;
              Structure and composition of Saturn's rings;
              Mapping the surfaces of larger asteroids;
              Sizes and albedoes of NEAs

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: without good absolute accuracy, meaningful
   constraints on real physical temperatures and surface and subsurface
   properties will have limited value.  for the rings, placing real
   constraints on size distribution and composition needs this accuracy.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: similar to the atmospheric sounding above,
   the SED gives the distribution of properties with depth, and is needed
   to high accuracy.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   the polarization angle can be calibrated from the data itself, except
   in the case of the Moon and possibly Saturn.  need to get to .1% or so 
   pol'n amplitude accuracy.  unimportant for 4.2.6 (signal too weak).

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4; 4.2.5; 4.2.6

DRSP name(s): Mapping the surfaces of the Moon, Mercury and Mars;
              Mapping the surfaces of large icy bodies;
              Structure and composition of Saturn's rings;
              Mapping the surfaces of larger asteroids;
              Sizes and albedoes of NEAs

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: without good absolute accuracy, meaningful
   constraints on real physical temperatures and surface and subsurface
   properties will have limited value.  for the rings, placing real
   constraints on size distribution and composition needs this accuracy.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: similar to the atmospheric sounding above,
   the SED gives the distribution of properties with depth, and is needed
   to high accuracy.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   the polarization angle can be calibrated from the data itself, except
   in the case of the Moon and possibly Saturn.  need to get to .1% or so 
   pol'n amplitude accuracy.  unimportant for 4.2.6 (signal too weak).

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.7; 4.4.1

DRSP name(s): Astrometry of NEAs and TNOs;
              Search for extrasolar planets via astrometry of nearby stars

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   10%?

   Please give short motivation: accurate flux densities not needed, as
   it's just the spatial position that is important.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation: see 1 above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 10%?

   Between receiver bands:   10%?

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.8; 4.3.8

DRSP name(s): Radar observations of NEAs
              Radar observations of comets

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  need this accuracy to get physical
   properties to desired level.  5% *might* be OK.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above - especially in the case
   of the comets, they will be highly time variable and this is important
   to measure accurately.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: see 1 and 2 above.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   polarization measurements are important here, but don't need exceptional
   accuracy.  10 deg in angle and 1% in amplitude are sufficient.

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Bockelee-Morvan

DRSP number(s): 4.3.1 to 4.3.7

DRSP name(s): COMETS


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   ------ 10% OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given uncertainties in modelling


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  --- 10%  OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given scientific objectives
   the short-time variability of the objects and the signal-to-noise
   ratios that will be reached.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? ----- 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? ---- 10%

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK for line ratios


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:


 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Bockelee-Morvan

DRSP number(s): 4.3.1 to 4.3.7

DRSP name(s): COMETS


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   ------ 10% OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given uncertainties in modelling


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  --- 10%  OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given scientific objectives
   the short-time variability of the objects and the signal-to-noise
   ratios that will be reached.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? ----- 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? ---- 10%

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK for line ratios


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:


 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Bockelee-Morvan

DRSP number(s): 4.3.1 to 4.3.7

DRSP name(s): COMETS


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   ------ 10% OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given uncertainties in modelling


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  --- 10%  OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given scientific objectives
   the short-time variability of the objects and the signal-to-noise
   ratios that will be reached.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? ----- 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? ---- 10%

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK for line ratios


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:


 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Bockelee-Morvan

DRSP number(s): 4.3.1 to 4.3.7

DRSP name(s): COMETS


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   ------ 10% OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given uncertainties in modelling


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  --- 10%  OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given scientific objectives
   the short-time variability of the objects and the signal-to-noise
   ratios that will be reached.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? ----- 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? ---- 10%

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK for line ratios


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:


 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Bockelee-Morvan

DRSP number(s): 4.3.1 to 4.3.7

DRSP name(s): COMETS


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   ------ 10% OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given uncertainties in modelling


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  --- 10%  OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given scientific objectives
   the short-time variability of the objects and the signal-to-noise
   ratios that will be reached.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? ----- 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? ---- 10%

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK for line ratios


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:


 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Bockelee-Morvan

DRSP number(s): 4.3.1 to 4.3.7

DRSP name(s): COMETS


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   ------ 10% OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given uncertainties in modelling


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  --- 10%  OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given scientific objectives
   the short-time variability of the objects and the signal-to-noise
   ratios that will be reached.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? ----- 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? ---- 10%

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK for line ratios


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:


 
Back to index
 


 
            Questionnaire on Required Calibration Accuracy
            ==============================================

            Please return to michiel@strw.leidenuniv.nl by APRIL 10
            ========================================================


Name author: Bockelee-Morvan

DRSP number(s): 4.3.1 to 4.3.7

DRSP name(s): COMETS


1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?   ------ 10% OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given uncertainties in modelling


2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or
continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also
the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%, 5% or 10%?  --- 10%  OK

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK, given scientific objectives
   the short-time variability of the objects and the signal-to-noise
   ratios that will be reached.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%, 5%, or 10%? ----- 10%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%, 5% or 10%? ---- 10%

   Please give short motivation: 10% OK for line ratios


4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):


5. Any other comments:


 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.8; 4.3.8

DRSP name(s): Radar observations of NEAs
              Radar observations of comets

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  need this accuracy to get physical
   properties to desired level.  5% *might* be OK.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   1-3%

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above - especially in the case
   of the comets, they will be highly time variable and this is important
   to measure accurately.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 1-3%

   Between receiver bands:   1-3%

   Please give short motivation: see 1 and 2 above.

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
   polarization measurements are important here, but don't need exceptional
   accuracy.  10 deg in angle and 1% in amplitude are sufficient.

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
Name author: B. Butler

DRSP number(s): 4.2.7; 4.4.1

DRSP name(s): Astrometry of NEAs and TNOs;
              Search for extrasolar planets via astrometry of nearby stars

1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals?

   10%?

   Please give short motivation: accurate flux densities not needed, as
   it's just the spatial position that is important.

2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
   to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
   range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
   archival value of your data.

   10%?

   Please give short motivation: see 1 above.

3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
   science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
   either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
   (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).

   Within one receiver band: 10%?

   Between receiver bands:   10%?

   Please give short motivation:  see 1 above

4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):

5. Any other comments:

 
Back to index
 


 
>  Name author: Lestrade, J-F  &  K. Menten
>
>  DRSP number(s): 4.4.2
>
>  DRSP name(s):  Dynamical parameters of extrasolar planets by ALMA astrometry.
>
>
>  1. What is the required ABSOLUTE calibration accuracy to reach your
>     science goals?
>
>     ANSWER : NO amplitude calibration  is required for this astrometry project.
> The phase
>     is the prime observable to get the position of the star observed.
>
>
>
>  2. What is the required REPEATIBILITY of the flux of your line or continuum
>     to reach your science goals? The timescale between observations can
>     range from a few days to months or even a year. Please consider also the
>     archival value of your data.
>
>     ANSWER : NO amplitude cal, same as above.
>
>
>  3. What is the required RELATIVE calibration accuracy to reach your
>     science goals? Here "relative" can apply to lines or continuum,
>     either within one receiver band or between different receiver bands
>     (e.g., line ratios, SED slope).
>
>     ANSWER : NO amplitude cal, same as above.
>
>  4. Requirement on polarization calibration accuracy (if applicable):
>
>
>  5. Any other comments:
>
>
>    The tricky part of this project will be instead PHASE CALIBRATION,
>    both instrumental and atmospheric. We expect that phase referencing
>    relative to an angularly nearby calibrator will do it as succesfully
>    demonstrated at lower frequencies. Position accuracy required for the
>    calibrators is 10 milliarcsecond or better.
>
>
>    I take a chance with this e-mail to correct the author list of this
>    proposal. The dots after my name is for Karl Menten (MPI) !. This
>    never got through, not surprising I agree. Could it be done though ?.
>
>
>    Please, contact me if any further questions
>
>    Best wishes,
>
>    Jean-Francois Lestrade
>
 
Back to index