Transcript National Optical Astronomy Observatory Kitt Peak National Observatory Status and Plans Richard F. Green Tucson, AZ 23 October, 2003

National
Optical
Astronomy
Observatory
Kitt Peak National Observatory
Status and Plans
Richard F. Green
Tucson, AZ 23 October, 2003
National
Optical
Astronomy
Observatory
Outline
I.
Instrumentation Partnerships
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
II.
WIYN Strategic Plan
A.
B.
C.
III.
U. of Maryland - NEWFIRM
STScI / GSFC - IRMOS
Penn State - Exoplanet Tracker (ET)
U. of Florida - continuation of FLAMINGOS
WIYN - 0.9m - Provision of Mosaic
One-Degree Imager
Upgraded wide-field spectroscopy
Tip/Tilt Module + NIR Camera
Longer-Term Goals - What best serves community interests?
Fulfilling the New NSF Cooperative Agreement
3. Provide through the staff & facilities of NOAO the
support necessary for conduct of research in the
relevant disciplines, assuring that the primary criterion
for the utilization of facilities be scientific merit of the
proposed research, as judged thru appropriate merit
review mechanisms.
5. Develop new instruments, techniques, and software
for astronomical observations, data analysis, and data
utilization which exploit existing NOAO telescopes.
7. Implement appropriate partnerships with US
universities and non-Federal observatories to
maximize the observational capabilities available to
the entire community
Heritage of Intended U. Maryland Partnership
• Users Committee recommendation, 9 December, 1995:
“There is a clear need for the capacity to carry out sensitive, large-scale IR surveys
which in turn will allow for the full utilization of the IR capabilities of Gemini.”
“As stressed above, we see wide-field IR imaging as a priority for NOAO that is
currently not being met.”
•
In FY95, KPNO received $6.77M in new funds from NSF, 22% of
the NOAO budget, and ~$8.3M in today’s dollars. In FY03, KPNO
received $3.74M in new funds, 15% of the NOAO budget.
• Users Committee recommendation, 2 May, 2001:
“In addition, the Committee recommends that NOAO openly and fully exploit the
development of novel, state-of-the-art instrumentation by private and public
institutions and laboratories.”
“To this end, we encourage NOAO management to consider expanding current
partnering arrangements that trade blocks of observing time for instrument
access and instrument support.”
“At the same time, the Committee requests that NOAO clearly articulate a process
and guidelines for implementing partnership arrangements. The amount of
telescope access that might be granted for an instrument should be stated and the
commitments from interested parties and the general user community clarified.”
KPNO Priorities: 4K x 4K NEWFIRM
– Planned initially as internal
NOAO project
– Instrument to be shared between
KPNO and CTIO –
complemented by continuing
access to FLAMINGOS
– Status: Non-advocate PDR June
4 & 5. Science in 2005.
– Detector foundry run supported
through FY03 supplemental
funding.
– NOAO internal allocation
required supplementary support
for manpower and capital.
Invitation to Partnership in NEWFIRM or
Externally Supplied Instrument
• The opportunity to propose for partnership was advertised through
several means
–
–
–
–
The March, 2002 NOAO Newsletter
Handouts at the January, 2002 AAS meeting
A highlighted item on the main NOAO web page for several months
The KPNO Director personally contacted all the institutions which had ever
expressed interest in an opportunity for partnership.
• The process was reviewed, revised and approved.
– The AURA Observatories Council reviewed the issue at least twice.
– The first time in December, 2001, they agreed in principle to a partnership and
made suggestions for the best ways to broadcast the opportunity to the
community, all of which we followed.
– The second time they approved our approach of a largely external review
committee, and delegated the responsibility for picking the winner to NOAO.
Implementation - 2
• One proposal was received for partnering, from the
University of Maryland.
• A (largely) external review committee was convened to
evaluate the proposal.
• They provided a report, stating that the Maryland
Astronomy Department was a suitable partner, and that they
requested a Phase 2 proposal with more detail to be assured
that the community received adequate value and that the
partnership management structure would assure success.
• They reviewed the Phase 2 proposal, with a
recommendation to the KPNO Director to proceed to
negotiate the terms of the partnership.
U. of Maryland Partnership
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
$450K / yr in cash and in kind, in exchange for 20% of the scheduled 4-m time.
Encouraged to exchange for WIYN nights 1:1 and 2.1-m nights 4:1.
3-yr terms, renewable by mutual consent, beginning with Semester 2003B.
In-kind contribution is two programming staff + 1 data aide, fully integrated into
NOAO Data Products Program pipeline development team, plus support of U MD
collaboration expenses.
Time allocation process similar to integration of Chilean TAC results into CTIO
block scheduling.
Oversight provided by “Board” of 3 U.MD + 3 NOAO, who meet semi-annually.
The first major joint project is NEWFIRM; capital for the instrument and
production of the data pipeline.
Prototype data pipeline to be developed for FLAMINGOS reductions.
With Maryland nights included, the oversubscription rates on the Mayall 4-m and
WIYN will be in the range of 2-4:1, consistent with that for other NSF resources,
such as the grants program
Current status: NOAO & U MD agreed on these terms; NSF AST requests Users
Committee comment before endorsing.
Your Advice Valued on the Following
Questions:
• Given the financial stringency of current observatory
support, does the U. MD partnership prospect represent a
responsible approach to providing competitive
instrumentation to users?
• What is a scientifically effective cadence for sharing
NEWFIRM between KPNO and CTIO (6 mo - 2 yr), taking
into consideration that KPNO observers may contribute
20% of their time to its development?
• What approach to planning maximum scientific impact of
the instrument should we take? Should we rely strictly on
market forces and the existing survey program, or should
we consider planning workshops, means to consolidate
programs that can share data, etc.?
B. IRMOS
Programmable multi-slit mask from digital
multi-mirror array - demonstrated
good performance at 70K
Feeds Rockwell Hawaii-1 (1Kx1K)
HgCdTe array
F/15 reimaging -> 0.25”/micro-mirror for
160”x120” FOV
Measurements demonstrating contrast
(background rejection) close to
1000.
Integration delays -> first light
commissioning in Spring ‘04
PI (MacKenty & Greenhouse) time for
initial science; further guarantees
dependent on community interest?
C. Penn State Exoplanet Tracker
– Fiber-fed bench spectrograph with
iodine reference; moire pattern from
Michelson interferometer projected
onto widened stellar spectrum for
phase sensitivity.
– Run with prototype at 2.1-m
confirmed planet, 11 m/s day-to-day
stability.
– Anticipate throughput sufficient to
monitor 8th - 9th mag on 2.1-m.
– Funded by NSF instrumentation grant
– PI Jian Ge will make available as a
user instrument, including reduction
software and hardware support.
– Ge and team would like 21,
14+match, 14+match nights on the
2.1-m for the first 3 semesters, then
match to user demand after that.
– Is the price right? (Should he come
on down?)
D. FLAMINGOS
– PI Elston is interested in continuing
to base the instrument at Kitt Peak.
Are we agreeable?
– Note that no DD time was ever
required to meet the minimum
guaranteed time (beyond the T&E
night beginning each block). All
was granted through TACapproved, highly ranked proposals.
– Recent improvements have greatly
reduced bad reads and the
scrambled data in final lines.
– KPNO proposers starting to use
multi-slits at the 4-m.
– Future option - 23-slice IFU for
30”x13” FOV with 0.6” sampling.
– (The image is a JHK composite of
IC 348, with the single pointing
FOV at the 2.1-m.)
E. Mosaic at WIYN 0.9-m
– KPNO provides Mosaic (+S2KB)
to the WIYN 0.9-m Consortium in
exchange for 40% of the Mosaic
time.
– This semester, Mosaic is on the
WIYN 0.9-m for 3 dark runs +
associated bright time.
– The Consortium agreement is up
for renewal next July; proposal is
for a 5-year term.
– NOAO scientific staff on balance
favorable - typical proposal getting
time ranked by TAC comparably to
average 2.1-m science.
– Technical staff finds no difficulties
with transfers from the 4-m, and
prefers maintenance of the
instrument on the 0.9-m.
– Should we renew this agreement?
II. WIYN Strategic Plan
– Develop ODI, maintain forefront
telescope performance, and build
on the strength of wide-field
spectroscopy. (Strongly endorsed
by the previous Users committee)
– Enhance the impact of WIYN
science through supporting
collaborations, creative scheduling
for time domain science.
– Encourage the partners to develop
technical capabilities.
– Explore Consortium access to
larger telescope facilities (largely a
university partner priority).
– Given that NOAO is in a
public/private partnership, are you
comfortable with these strategic
directions for the Consortium?
One-Degree Imager
– Current status: First foundry run of Orthogonal
Transfer CCD arrays about to begin.
Architecture developed by STA (Bredthauer) in
close collaboration with Barry Burke of MITLL
through WIYN / PanSTARRS collaboration.
First devices to be tested next Spring.
– NOAO helped fund foundry, and is supplying a
Monsoon controller for lab testing.
– Instrument Scientist is George Jacoby.
– Proposal submitted for QUOTA (8K x 8K) to
NSF.
– WIYN Board authorized spending of instrument
reserve to bring opto-mechanical design to
CoDR.
– Aiming for deployment of ODI in 2007.
– Institutions are preparing to commit: should
NOAO squeeze to provide its share - $1-1.5M?
Hydra / Bench Upgrade
– Current status: Hydra positioner
passed CDR; summer shutdown will
see new (maintainable!) rails and
drive motors, control electronics and
software.
– VPH grating is being mounted for
first trials later this year.
– M. Bershady (UW) and C. & D.
Harmer have developed a design for
an off-axis collimator and field lens
group that could afford a 3x increase
in throughput (of end fibers) with
very small loss of spectral purity.
– Bench upgrade project will proceed
subject to successful PDR next
Spring.
WTTM + NIR Camera
– Commissioning and scientific verification
of WTTM is nearly complete.
– WTTM will yield the best gains in DIQ in
the near-IR.
– Margaret Meixner of STScI is interested
in building a NIR camera for WTTM, and
has some internal funding to do so.
– KPNO owns a second Hawaii 1 array
delivered as part of the IRMOS order. It
could serve as a “starter” array until
funding can be secured for a 2K x 2K.
– An NSF ATI proposal for the camera
from Wisconsin got good reviews but no
funding.
– Would such a camera be worth supporting
by NOAO (e.g., by providing a Monsoon
controller)?
National
Optical
Astronomy
Observatory
Longer-Term Goals
Partnerships can serve to provide major new instruments:
NEWFIRM in 2005 (to be shared with CTIO), ODI in 2007.
Is this pace of reinvestment appropriate to maintain competitive facilities?
With the “plateau” budget in the NOAO plan, more rapid reinvestment would mean
more partner nights.
What is your thinking on the next major instrument for KPNO, delivery ~2010?
NEWFIRM clone
8K x 8K prime focus NIR imager
Mosaic upgrade (new controller + red-hot CCDs?)
Optical spectroscopic upgrade
Wider field, beam-fed, VPH gratings
Deployable IFUs at WIYN
High resolution (60-70,000) bench spectrograph at WIYN
Multi-object ET
Next generation IR MOS
With 5-year production timescales, it’s not too soon to set the future course.