Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents

Long Range Planning for NOAO (1Jun95)
(from Director's Office, NOAO Newsletter No. 42, June 1995)

Over the past year, substantial effort has been devoted to defining how to
restructure NOAO  to accommodate what are likely to be reduced levels of
federal funding for science at a time when the scientific opportunities have
never been greater.  New telescopes and instruments will enable scientific
programs that were impossible only a few years ago.  The question is how the
NOAO program must evolve to take advantage of new opportunities; that
evolution must necessarily occur by substitution not growth, because of budget
constraints.

The planning process has proceeded in several stages, with involvement of the
user community at each stage.  The first step was NOAO 2000, where the
NOAO staff, after consultation with the users committees, defined in broad
outline where we thought the program should go.  The second important input
came from the OIR Panel, chaired by Dick McCray, which outlined a set of
explicit priorities for NOAO.  Previous Newsletters have described these
activities.  Most recently, AURA sponsored a workshop in Albuquerque to
evaluate internal NOAO planning and external recommendations of priorities
in order to develop an integrated set of guidelines for more detailed planning.
The key conclusions of that workshop are summarized in this article.

These three efforts---NOAO 2000, the OIR Panel, and the Albuquerque
workshop---provide in broad outline a vision for how NOAO will develop over
the next few years.  What we must now do is translate that vision into a
specific program that defines what telescopes and instruments will be built,
what level of support will be provided, and (the most difficult part) what
cannot be provided.

We plan to give the user community opportunity to participate directly in the
formulation of this program.  In this Newsletter we describe the opportunities
to join the debates through an electronic forum.  Please also feel free to send
your comments directly to me on the priorities that you would like to see
followed as we (NOAO, AURA, and the user community) develop the
implementation plan (swolff@noao.edu).

                            Albuquerque Workshop

On 12-14 March of this year a workshop on "The Future of NOAO" was held
in Albuquerque. Invited to this workshop were the leadership and selected staff
of NOAO, the Observatories Advisory Committee (OVC) and other selected
board members and staff of AURA, representatives from the three Users
Committees, and some other individuals selected for their special expertise in
instrumentation or involvement in major telescope projects. The mission of the
workshop was "Focusing on NOAO's role of service to the astronomical
community and AURA's role as trustee and advocate for the mission of
NOAO, to develop, assess, and select strategies for the next decade, based on
our understanding of NOAO and on advice from the community through the
OIR panel (the McCray Committee) and the OVC."  The underlying theme of
the workshop was the question of how NOAO can plan so as to be able to
provide the community with access to the telescopes and instruments---
capabilities---needed for progress in astronomy into the next century.
Obvious constraints considered in the discussions include both the
probable financial constraints and the tremendous advances and changes in
telescope and instrument design over the last decade, making it possible to
build new telescopes that are (for a given aperture) cheaper to operate as well
as capable of better performance (including fast and accurate slewing and
acquisition, diffraction-limited imaging, and IR optimization).

A full report of the meeting has been compiled and sent to participants and to
the National Science Foundation (NSF). Copies are available in the libraries at
the various NOAO sites. The conclusions reached at the meeting have been
distilled into the following Executive Summary.

                               Executive Summary

A consensus was reached, explicitly or implicitly, on the following points:

1)  The ideas and priorities presented in the McCray Committee Report
provide a foundation for the next level of planning for nighttime astronomy.

2)  "NOAO must lead as well as serve" (J. Nelson, in the final summary
session). To lead, NOAO must have good communication with the community,
must have good relations with other major observatories, and must have a
first-rate scientific staff.

3)  The National Solar Observatory is re-evaluating its strategic path,
encouraged to do so both by emerging new observational techniques
(super-polished mirrors, active image correction) and by mounting financial
pressures as it operates two sites, each with unique capabilities. Major changes
may be needed to ensure that it can maintain its position of leadership. A
high-level review of solar physics, along the lines of the OIR panel, would be
very helpful in such reassessments.

4)  The establishment of a "facilities-class instrumentation program" by NSF,
with support for instrumentation provided in exchange for public access to
telescope time at the independent observatories, is an excellent idea, and
AURA and NOAO must actively support its establishment. NOAO with
AURA should also work closely with the independent observatories and the
NOAO users in defining the details of the implementation of this program so
as to ensure that it benefits all segments of the community. In anticipation of
this program, and in recognition of the increasing specialization of
astronomical facilities, NOAO policies regarding granting observing time to
observers with privileged access to other facilities should be examined
carefully, including the function of questions asked on the proposal form.

5)  In both the nighttime and solar program, it is imperative to invest now in
new telescopes and instruments in such a way as to improve the scientific
capabilities while reducing long-term operating costs.

6)  The plan presented by the discussion group on telescopes at this workshop
is a strong first response to the opportunities and constraints that are
presently apparent.

Specifically, the following comprises the "minimum viable telescope
complement for NOAO":

        at CTIO:        Gemini 8-m, CTIO 4-m, SOAR 4-m, 1.5-m

        at KPNO:        WIYN 3.5-m, Mayall 4-m

        in Hawaii:      Gemini IR-optimized 8-m telescope

In this worst case model, other presently operating facilities would be closed
or privatized. However, we recommend strongly that another alternative be
explored, to enable cutting-edge science by the community that NOAO serves:

        the replacement of the aging 4-m telescopes with modern, high
        performance, low operating cost telescopes of 4-m to 8-m aperture;

        the provision at both sites of identical 2.5-m wide field imaging
        telescopes.

Such new telescopes could be much more efficient in queue mode than
existing ones, allowing fewer telescopes to pick up more of the science
currently served by many small telescopes. It would also make it possible to
site major telescopes together for maximum operating efficiency, with the
possibility that, as present facilities are privatized or closed, some
existing sites could be made available for use by universities or groups.

7)  There will be significant changes in the equipment and services available
to users, in the most frequent modes of observing, and in the ways that the
national observatories and the independent observatories interact. These
changes will have profound implications for the user community, both positive
(access to powerful new instruments) and negative (a substantial decrease in
direct access as less total time is available). The use of new modes of
observing may allow more programs to be carried out on fewer telescopes, and
enable new kinds of scientific programs to be carried out at NOAO, but their
advantages may not be immediately apparent to users. It will require much
improved mechanisms for communication between the community and NOAO
to make sure that these changes can occur with widespread community support
and involvement and with minimal negative impact on scientific progress.

8)  Greater involvement by the community in the planning of instruments for
NOAO is desirable, even necessary as the number of choices increases. The
establishment of a senior advisory committee, plus changes proposed for
existing committees (OAC, OVC, and Users' Committees), were discussed as
possible mechanisms for such input. The discussion group on instruments has
provided a working plan to begin this process, including a strong
recommendation in favor of a more ambitious effort to incorporate adaptive
optics. Issues not fully resolved by the workshop include integrating the
instrument plans with the telescope plans developed at the workshop; the level
of effort that NOAO should be prepared to invest in adaptive optics for the
next generation of telescopes, and the specific mechanism for wider
community input into instrument selection for NOAO.

9)  An improved process for procurement of instruments for Gemini is
proposed. This process consists of three steps:

   (1)  NOAO, in consultation with AURA, convenes an advisory committee.

   (2)  This committee considers proposals from groups interested in
        building the instrument for Gemini. It recommends to NOAO, for
        transmission to NSF, (a) a rank-ordered list, (b) a single proposal,
        (c) a collaboration, or (d) a more formal competition (such as was
        used for the IR spectrometer).

   (3)  The selected group(s) (in cases a-c) will prepare more detailed
        technical proposal(s) for review by a scientific and technical
        committee. On the basis of that committee's recommendations to the
        NOAO director, the US Gemini Program will negotiate final
        arrangements with the International Gemini Project and the proposer
        for carrying out the instrumentation work package.

Also, it is strongly recommended that NSF supplement Gemini funding to
provide the US obligation for fair value to the International Gemini Project.
This would allow for full cost recovery in many cases, and would therefore
provide equal opportunity to independent institutions and to NOAO to propose
to build instruments.

10)  The interaction among the various groups represented at the workshop
was extremely positive and productive. The NOAO users, the NOAO staff, the
AURA board members who also represent a variety of institutions, and
particularly those member of the community who came to share their
experience and expertise in the areas of instrumentation and telescope
construction all contributed in critical ways to the success of the workshop.
It is important to continue this vital cooperation as we move into the future.

Lee Anne Willson (Chair, Observatories Council)
Sidney Wolff (Director, NOAO)

The Executive Summary was prepared by L.A. Willson in consultation with
members of the Observatory Advisory Committee, J. Salzer (Users Committee
representative), G. Oertel, and S. Wolff.

Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents