Square Kilometer Array (SKA) decision timetable - a waiting game

[gary]

Many readers will be interested in knowing what day the site selection decision for
the Square Kilometer Array will be announced.

The short answer is that the general public will probably have to wait until
March/April 2012.

Some light is shed on this by the Briefing Notes for the Meeting of the SKA Board of
Directors which took place on 18 Jan 2012.
See http://www.skatelescope.org/wp-conte...ng.Notes_1.pdf

In summary -

* 7 Feb 2012 - The SKA Siting Group (SSG) was to receive the report and recommendation
of the SKA Site Advisory (SSAC). As this information is confidential, one can
only assume that this event has taken place.

* 15 Feb 2012 - The SSG was to meet and transmit the SSAC's report and
recommendation, together with its own comments on the site evaluation
process, to the SKA Board of Directors.

* 22 Feb 2012 - The Board will meet to discuss the report and recommendation.
If the Board is satisfied that the agreed evaluation process has been followed, it will
convene a General Meeting of Members.

* No date appears to have been announced for such a General Meeting,
but a deadlock mechanism for the site selection process has already been
approved which would come into effect if it is not possible to reach a
unanimous decision on a site resolution. At the General Meeting, Members
will be invited to consider the SSAC report and recommendation and further
negotiation will take place.

* No date appears to have been announced but another General Meeting
will then take place for a vote.

* If no agreement is reached, two to six weeks later, the deadlock mechanism will
be invoked.

As Brian Boyle is a Board Director, in theory he should know by now
but he has made clear that this information will be confidential for some time.
In a Tweet yesterday, Brian said he still did not know.

Brian has indicated that the general public should learn of the decision some time
in March/April.

To date, the Australian Government has invested over $300 million in the project.
$152 million for the Australian Square Kilometer Array Pathfinder project (ASKAP).
See http://www.atnf.csiro.au/projects/askap/
$10 million for the Murchison Wide Field Array
See http://www.mwatelescope.org/
$80 million for the Pawsey Supercomputing Center
See http://www.ivec.org/Supercomputing/P...mputing_Centre
$25 million for the Perth to Geraldton NBN optical fiber link
See http://www.computerworld.com.au/arti...e_roll_begins/
$50 million on green power for the sites.
See http://www.sciencewa.net.au/3388-fro...rk-matter.html
The West Australian Government has also invested $10.8 million into the Pawsey
Center.

A successful bid would attract $2.1 billion of investment from overseas.
If the Australian bid is successful, the computer infrastructure in the Pawsey Center
in WA alone would make it one of the most powerful computer systems on the planet
processing at any instant what is estimated to be the equivalent to ten times
the entire Internet data traffic. By comparison, it makes the computing
requirement of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) seem small so winning the
bid would be a huge shot in the arm for the Australian IT and communications
industries.

Follow Dr Brian Boyle on Twitter here -
http://twitter.com/#!/brianboyleska

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Thanks for the update Gary

[Bassnut (Fred)]

I don't understand how the gov can spend 300mil on a hope. Is all that money wasted if we lose?. Is the infrastructure built so far usefull on its own?.

[AndrewJ]

I don't understand how the gov can spend 300mil on a hope.

We ( as a state ) spent 5 times that on a hope ( read transport ticket system )
so 300 mill for the country is petty change.
If it sounds good and uses computers,
( and involves a possible photo shoot in the outback )
they will pay anything.

Andrew

[Bassnut (Fred)]

It's funny, I saw a live presentation on the oz bid. It was presented as a done deal. Any question on ".......but we haven't actually got it yet....right?" returned a quizzical don't-understand gaze.

Andrew, yes, the PR alone was probably worth 300mill, ........to the gov.

I'm all for the fastest PC in the world gear and fancy pics, but sheesh, that's an expensive "pre bid".

[gary]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Is all that money wasted if we lose?. Is the infrastructure built so far usefull on its own?.

The plan is that ASKAP (36 antennae x 12m ) will be a world-leading telescope
in its own right. The Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) will consist if 2048
dual polarized dipole antennae listening at 80-300MHz and will also be a powerful
instrument in its own right.

So if Australia is unsuccessful in its bid, then we will still have two new powerful state-of-the-art telescopes.

It is not lost on the South Africans the opportunities that come about in winning the
bid and they too have invested heavily in their attempt to secure it, including beginning
construction of the precursor Karoo Array telescope, which is known as MeerKAT.
It will be the world's largest radio telescope before the SKA is built.

As far back as 2004, the South African government decided to increase the
number of PhD and MSc graduates in radio astronomy. Whenever I have had
the opportunity to ask an Australian astronomer about the SKA, they have
nothing but admiration for their South African colleagues and the consensus,
even in Govt. is that the bid could easily go either way.

But to be a player at the table, the ante is high. And both South Africa and Australia
have thrown in their antes and both have strong hands.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Whew, that's all good then, please proceed !.

[JB80 (Jarrod)]

Thanks for the update and good luck for the winning bid. Also thanks for the links too. It would be great to see Australia take a leading role if given the opportunity.

It could be worse I guess, you could already have the investment in and then get the plug pulled by an unreliable partner as what has happenned to the Europeans.

[gary]

As a couple of postscripts to the original post -

1) In a tweet from Brian Boyle today, 18th Feb 2012, "Report of SKA Site Advisory Committee now sent to SKA Board".

2) Sydney Morning Herald story by Bridie Smith today, "Last-ditch push for $2.5bn radio telescope deal".

Originally Posted by Bridie Smith - Sydney Morning Herald

SCIENCE minister Chris Evans leaves for China and Italy today to press the case that Australia is the best place to build the world's largest and most sensitive radio telescope.

...

Senator Chris Evans will lead the eight-member delegation which includes CSIRO astronomer and SKA project director Brian Boyle, his New Zealand counterpart Jonathan Kings and Western Australian Science and Innovation minister John Day.
Their destination is strategic. China and Italy are two of the four-member countries of the SKA board that will vote on where the telescope will be built. The United Kingdom and Holland - where Senator Evans will visit later this month - will also vote at the SKA board meeting on April 4.

...

Set to begin construction in 2016, the SKA will cost $2.5 billion to build and $25 billion to maintain over 50 years, paid for by a consortium of 20 countries.

Story here -
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci...217-1ter4.html

In a tweet by Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt on 14 Feb, he mentions he
had "An impressive 'light' 7-course lunch at the Chinese Embassy with
Brian Boyle. Brian Boyle responded that it was "called eating for your country".
Who could ask for two better ambassadors for science?

[Jules76 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by gary

The plan is that ASKAP (36 antennae x 12m ) will be a world-leading telescope
in its own right. The Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) will consist if 2048
dual polarized dipole antennae listening at 80-300MHz and will also be a powerful
instrument in its own right.

So if Australia is unsuccessful in its bid, then we will still have two new powerful state-of-the-art telescopes.

It should also be pointed out that the $25m to build the fibre optic link from Perth to Geraldton was going to be spent anyway as part of the NBN. It's just been prioritised to help boost the bid.

[Benno18 (Ben)]

Well as long as Julia Gillard does not get involved, ergo the soccer world cup bid, we should be all good!!!!

[gary]

Ben (Benno18),

Just a reminder of the forum's Terms of Service, specifically Section 3.
See http://www.iceinspace.com.au/tos.html

Originally Posted by IceInspace TOS

Avoid topics about race, politics or religion.

Best Regards

Gary Kopff
Mount Kuring-Gai

[Benno18 (Ben)]

Originally Posted by gary

Ben (Benno18),

Just a reminder of the forum's Terms of Service, specifically Section 3.
See http://www.iceinspace.com.au/tos.html



Best Regards

Gary Kopff
Mount Kuring-Gai

good call Gary
Sorry if offended
Benno

[Terry B]

Is there any word on this decision yet. Originally it was to be announced on 29/2

[gary]

Originally Posted by Terry B

Is there any word on this decision yet. Originally it was to be announced on 29/2

Hi Terry,

Brian Boyle has indicated in a Twiiter today that "April 4 is the date of the next SKA Members
meeting when a vote on the site decision could be taken."

We know that the report of the site selection committee is in, but as board member,
Brian is maintaining confidentiality.

China, Italy, the UK and the Netherlands are the votes that count in the end.

[Terry B]

Not good news.
http://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-t...309-1upsp.html

[spacezebra (Petra)]

Thanks for the update, looks very close...and more waiting....

Cheers Petra d.

[astronut (John)]

It has nothing to do with "Who has the best Bid or site"..it has all to do with politics!!
Let me see if I can explain Australia's situation using physics.
What would you be if you were attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis.

"Screwed.".....my two cents..

[Octane (Humayun)]

Nice one, John. TBBT is great.

H

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

It is a strange report really,
Firstly it was a scientific panel not a political panel.
Secondly the panel discussion are confidential. So how the hell did the news get a hold of it, were they part of the meeting?

Or is it another media sensationalism. There are no direct references from the panel discussion. I think we see so many assumptions made by the media that scientific community can't trust them, yet the majority non scientific community do trust what is said. No wonder science is taken a nose dive in community trust.

Personally the media assumed what happened because the Minister didn't give them what they wanted.