Re: Draft of the LCS poster

[Leonid Petrov <Leonid.Petrov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ed and others.

  Thank you for comments.

> I would suggest to put a ref/link to PASA paper, at the very left bottom

Done.

> The one thing I would suggest is that in Australia people are less
> comfortable with the lettered band names--you might just for ensurance say
> "8GHz" instead of "X".

Fixed.

> Correlation: at MPfRA in Bonn, Germany   (should be room)
> Analyzed: at NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, Md

Fixed

> absolute astrometry mode may need more explanation
> 'in bandwidth-synthesis mode'

  I added 'in bandwidth-synthesis mode' as you suggested, but actually I meant
absolute astrometry in opposition to geodesy mode. There were previous
attempts to observe southern sources by the USNO folks, but their were 
scheduled in geodesy mode. Unfortunately, effectiveness of such schedules for
astrometry is, how to say it gently, very low.

> 3.9 ns ambiguity spacing means what in approximate accuracy of apriori 
> position or other model errors.  

  Typical ambiguity spacing in geodesy experiments are 50--200 nsec. Prior
LBA campaign the smallest spacings were 28 ns for VLBA experiments, which
were considered tough. 3.9 ns spacings were considered show stoppers.
The contribution of the non-hydrostatic path delay which is traditionally not
modeled is 0.5-3.0 ns. As a rule of thumb you cannot reliably resolve 
ambiguities if the unmodeled contrition are greater than 1/6 of the spacing.

I added words "(Typical spacings are 50--200~ns)"

> What about the large bandwidth in each IF?  This should help.

  Yes, it helps.

Do you suggestions which words add/remove?

> Why is X-band 'not so cool'?   No ionosphere removal?

 Yes. I added words "(ionospheric errors are large)"

> Parkes scheduling constraint:  slow slewing and/or no low elevation?

both.

> Diagram:  I am red-green color blind, so I cannot distinguish between 
> the green and
> brown colours very well.  Easy to change.? Yellow and red would be good.

  I replaced green with blue. Did it become better?

> If only 422 scheduled target sources, how did you estimate flux 
> densities for 484 sources?

  We also observed tropospheric calibrators. I did not consider them as 
targets. I got estimates of their correlated flux densities as well.


> Why does 'Geodesy?' have this question mark?   Remove '?' and have the 
> subtext
> 'Typical baseline separations with time'.  

  I replaced "Geodesy?" with "Geodetic results"

> Could you increase the script size and point size?

  Yes, I increased.

Did I miss anything?

Updated version of the poster is available at 
http://astrogeo.org/lcs/poster_2010a.pdf 

The LaTeX source code of the poster is available at 
http://astrogeo.org/vlbi/lcs/misc/lcs_poster_2010a.zip


Sincerely,
Leonid
19-JAN-2010 21:50:37