The Square Kilometer Array: organisation and challenges

1
The Square Kilometer Array organisation and
challenges

• Richard Schilizzi
• SKA Project

2
Basic specs
Thats tough
Especially when there are 15 countries involved
3
Antenna Concepts
Common Elements of the SKA Array
4
Snapshot of current activity

• Science
• review science compliance matrix for design
  concepts
• simulations of reference skies
• level 0 science headline science
• version 2 of science case by May 2004
• update of User Requirements Document, Feb 2005

5
Snapshot of current activity II

• Design concepts
• active prototyping in 6 countries/regions
• 1. larger antenna elements
• Multiple Arecibos in KARST formations (FAST,
  China)
• Large adaptive reflector (CLAR, Canada)
• Array of cylindrical reflectors (SKAMP,
  Australia)
• 2. smaller antenna elements
• Array of small dishes (ATA, DSN, USA India)
• Planar phased array (THEA, SAMBA, BEST, Europe)
• Array of Luneburg lenses (Australia)
• Array of dipoles (LOFARlow freq SKA, NL/ US)

6
Snapshot of current activity III
Design concepts International review of technical
feasibility of design concepts Site Review of
initial site analyses submitted by Australia,
China, South Africa, and USA in May
2003 Simulations Workshop on end-to-end
simulations of technical concepts at Geraldton,
July 2003
7
Snapshot of current activity IV

• Meetings
• AAS meeting on Transients, Seattle - June 2003
• This meeting
• SKA2003, Geraldton, Australia - July 2003
• Leiden workshop - November 2003
• OECD Global Science Forum Workshop on Astronomy
  December 2003
• Berlin Symposium on SKA, ALMA, JWST, ELT science
  - May 2004

8
Current organisation
9
Organisation in 2005
10
SKA Development Plan

• 2004-5 Site testing, phase 1 prototyping
  continues
• 2005 selection of site
• 2007 selection of technical design
• phase 2 prototyping begins
• 2009 Submit funding proposals (set by US Decadal
  Review)
• 2012 Start construction

11
How much will it cost?
Current estimates for construction
(antennas, receivers, data
transmission, civil costs, processing, computing
hardware, software development, non-recurring
engineering, contingency) Luneberg lens 1.
1 B/ Cylindrical reflector (9 GHz) 1
LAR 2 Small dishes 1.6 Aperture
arrays 1.4 N x Arecibo ? Current
estimate for operating costs 70 M/ /
year User support 50 M / / year Upgrades
50 M/ / year
12
Funding

• prototyping phase 1 (to 2007)
• 20 M/ so far from national funds
  (60 M/
  including LOFAR and ATA)
• Proposal to NSF for SKA Technology Development
  Plan
• Proposal to EU for SKA Design Study (20 M)
• prototyping phase 2 (2008-2011)
• TBD
• construction phase (2012 -2019)
• 1/3 USA (NSF)
• 1/3 Europe (inter-governmental agreement?, EU?)
• 1/3 Australia, Canada, South Africa, China,
  India, Japan,

13
Where will the SKA be built?

• Best site for the best science
• Northern hemisphere (infrastructure) vs Southern
  (Galactic Centre, ALMA, VLT, ELT?)
• RFI environment - international radio science
  reserves/ controlled emission zones
• Tropospheric stability
• How important are 8000km baselines?
• Zenith angle limits/shadowing
• Cost
• Political issues who has the money
• Decision August 2005

14
Terrestrial Interference

• Forte satellite 131MHz

FORTÉ satellite 131 MHz
15
Challenges science case

• Identify level 0 science - possible examples
• galaxy formation and evolution
• dark energy and dark matter at redshifts 1 to 3
• magnetic universe
• EoR and the first stars
• Pulsars and general relativity
• Publicise the science case to the wide
  astronomical community and the policy-makers

16
Challenges telescope architecture

• Constructing a cost effective SKA
• antenna elements
• high data rate signal transfer
• high dynamic range imaging
• RFI excision
• correlator
• Hybrid designs need investigating
• Down-selection of design concepts
• Cost

17
Challenges
location How to manage the political
issues Funding Getting funding! How to align
funding world-wide Different funding cycles
18
Challenges international collaboration

• Different funding cycles
• Different prior investment histories
• Different scientific interests
• Different stages of SKA-specific technology
  development
• Different decision-making cultures
• Different cultures of project management
  including IPR
• How to ensure continued broad participation after
  site and concept selection
• mutual convergence
• best site-best science

19
Further informationwww.skatelescope.org