OIR Long Range Planning Committee

September 2004 Meeting Summary Report

Topics discussed by the Committee at its first meeting September 2,3

Charge to the committee

Introductory remarks by Craig Foltz. Operations funds should be folded into the planning at an early stage, including closure of old facilities to provide ops funds for new ones. Note the distinction between physics experiments (with a well-defined end) and observatories, in which operations overwhelm capital costs.

BPA Committee

Roger Blandford described CAA’s role in between decadal surveys. A small committee had been set up for mid-course review of the survey:

OIR and survey panels

GSMT was conceived as a breakthrough instrument and not simply a bigger telescope. Synergy with JWST as well; GSMT can really do the spectroscopy. The science drivers were seen as star/galaxy formation and the search for new worlds.

LSST’s uniqueness was seen as the synoptic capability.

Brinkman report

The recommended new process was a sequential (1) AST prioritization, (2) NSF prioritization, (3) national prioritization in an international context. The committee discussed the case for high astronomy project priority in arena (2) and arena (3).

Process transfer from NASA

NASA tends to have very long-term roadmaps. NASA often uses competition to find the best proposal, and to ferret out weak points in projects. Roadmapping by NASA phases projects. The committee noted the distinction between the ‘winner take all’ NASA competition process and the ‘losers join the winners’ DOE process. NSF does now have a handbook on how to manage large projects. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/lfp/document/facilities.pdf

Current GSMT situation:

There is a TMT project in design and development with private funds from the Moore foundation: It is a Caltech/UC/ACURA/AURA partnership. There is also a GMT project. This is the Magellan partners plus Texas. A 20-meter. Links are on the NOAO GSMT website. http://www.aura-nio.noao.edu/

Submissions to be sought from GMT and TMT

The committee devised a set of questions relevant to constructing a roadmap that they would like Magellan and TMT to answer. The LRPC’s role is not evaluative, but to set up the right questions. Questions to ask LSST and PS were also devised.

SWG’s Design Reference Mission for LSST

This is now available http://www.noao.edu/lsst/DRM.pdf This year the SWG will study science as a function of AΩ.

Pan-STARRS4

John Tonry described the plan for PanStarrs4.

This year’s plans for GSMT SWG

Improving the synergy with JWST science case. Improving the interface between the community and the projects Dialog on science with Japan and Europe. Broader science case.

NVO

The main product of the last 4 years’ work has been standards for interoperability. The emerging standards are international. The committee will seek presentations at the next meeting from:

• Alex Szalay on the vision for the NVO and what would be accomplished before the next decadal survey.
• Todd Boroson on NOAO’s plans.
• Bob Hanisch on STScI’s plans
• Bruce Berriman on IPAC’s plans

Meeting Schedule

1. Kickoff—done
2. Input meeting November 11, 12 in Tucson
   AAS get together
3. Feedback meeting in February
4. Report writing meeting in April

Committee meetings are open, with closed executive sessions as required.