Download
1 / 1
10 likes | 118 Views
Explore the cost analysis of utilizing one or two bands for the SKA project, considering factors like Field of View (FoV) and deployment costs. The choice between one or two bands may depend on specific specs and operational issues. Additional tweaks on the analysis, such as FoV adjustments, can impact relative and absolute costs. The importance of optimizing strategy for the huge number of elemental antennas is highlighted, alongside the need for information from pathfinders. Global indifference to cost considerations and the calibration challenges at certain frequencies raise concerns. The urgency of science convergence and active participation from pathfinders for pre-SRR contributions in SKA-low are emphasized.
E N D
One band or two? • See SKA Memo 140 for starting point in performance – cost analysis (70-450 MHz) • No a priori advantages for either 1 or 2-band with current SKA goals • Particular specs and site/operations issues influence relative and absolute costings • Tweaks on original analysis: FoV, array configuration etc • Processed FoV above ~200 MHz is a major relative cost driver, due b/f • With a “relaxed” FoV spec, 1-band array has cost advantage • Deployment costs are a significant absolute cost driver for SKA-low • Huge number of elemental antennas demands optimized strategy • Worrying global indifference to Memo 140 absolute costs • Very sparse array at 450 MHz may be a problem for 1-band calibration (sidelobes) • May just be OK at 400 MHz • Need information from pathfinders • Need to be able to pay the calibration power bill ! • Push for 50 MHz is growing but no-one wants to give up on high-freq (and some want >450 MHz) • We may need 2–bands anyway • Frequency coverage and FoV are primary inputs for our design brief • Urgent need for science convergence • Active role needed for pathfinders to contribute pre-SRR info SKA-low (LFAA) – Peter J Hall
