I first came to NOAO in 1984 as Director of KPNO, and I am now nearing the completion of my second term as Director of NOAO. It is therefore perhaps not inappropriate to reflect on why I came and how my aspirations for the national observatories compare with their current situation.
I came to the national observatories for several reasons. The first is that I genuinely believed-and continue to believe--in the concept of open, competitive access independent of institutional affiliation to facilities that are at the very least equal to the best available anywhere in the world. Astronomy has, through the existence of national observatories in space and on the ground--solved a problem that many fields of research have not. Excellence in astronomy is widely distributed in a diverse group of institutions, and this widely distributed excellence has surely enhanced the quality of education of both undergraduate and graduate students throughout the country.
The second reason that I came was that I had had the great good fortune to be at the University of Hawaii at the time that John Jefferies was leading the development of the astronomy program there. When I arrived in Hawaii, ground had not yet been broken for the first telescope on Mauna Kea. Participating in the development of Mauna Kea was terrifically exciting, and in 1984 I thought that only the national observatories offered the opportunity to undertake a second building program of comparable scope. And a building program was sorely needed at that time. There had been no major initiatives within the national optical astronomy observatories since the 4-m telescopes.
Over the past decade, we--and I use that term broadly to encompass the staff of NOAO and AURA and the user community--have put NOAO back on the map. The building program that we have undertaken in the past ten years has led to the Gemini telescopes project, the completion and deployment of GONG, the completion of WIYN, and delivery of a suite of instruments and detector systems that are among the best in the world.
Unfortunately, none of that success has led to improved funding for NOAO--and indeed the unprecedented rate of discovery in astronomy has, apart from the Gemini project, done nothing to improve funding for astronomy within the NSF. Since 1984, the fraction of the NSF portfolio devoted to astronomy grant funding and operation of the national centers has fallen. The chances of reversing this situation are low given the overall budget prospects for the next few years. We have posted on the Web a letter from Neal Lane holding out no hope whatsoever. In a recent interview, Hugh Van Horn was asked what he would say to users of KPNO about the prospect of closing northern hemisphere telescopes. He summarized what he said to the reporter this way:
"I said that no one wants to close productive telescopes but the budgetary conditions we now have to face will make it necessary to take some decisions we might not like. I also said that the McCray committee had thought long and hard about this, that I was going to follow their recommendations to the extent that I am able, and that I applaud NOAO's decision also to follow the McCray committee's recommendations. I stated that we have a responsibility to use the Federal investment to support US astronomy to produce the very best science, acting on the basis of the best advice we can obtain, although I recognize that there will be differences of opinion about this."
The question for all of us is how we address priorities given the circumstances we find ourselves in. I certainly did not come to NOAO with the goal of closing telescopes or reducing observing opportunities for the community. However, the failure to make choices will ultimately compromise the entire program and threaten its future viability. Given that difficult choices are required, I would like to share with you my thoughts about a variety of subjects and issues raised in the forum posted on the Web.
The Users
I am glad that so many users spoke up about their views concerning the importance of access to telescopes. It is clear that the McCray committee report did not reflect the views of those users who are vocal about NOAO priorities. It is important that the NSF and others hear from those whose science will be impacted if the recommendations of the McCray report are followed. There are limits to what NOAO and AURA can do about defending current programs since we will probably be seen to be self-serving. The community of users must assume a significant portion of the responsibility for articulating the case for continued operation of NOAO telescopes.
An assessment of the observing applications shows that the impact of the closure of small telescopes, if no corrective actions are taken, will fall most heavily on galactic astronomy. There is only a very limited amount of extragalactic astronomy currently being pursued with apertures less than 2 meters. In addition to continuing to have access to a range of apertures, the users also appear to support a balance of facilities north and south rather than the strong focus on the southern hemisphere advocated by the McCray committee.
Small Telescopes
After the TAC reviewed the proposals for the KPNO telescopes for the fall semester, 1996, NOAO staff analyzed the recommended proposals to determine what would be lost if we tried to schedule the high priority programs on fewer telescopes. We found that we could not accommodate the science by moving programs from smaller telescopes to larger ones. Most of the programs at the 0.9-m and all of the ones at the Schmidt require a wider field of view than is available with single detectors at the larger telescopes. Accordingly, we will continue to operate all of the KPNO telescopes in the fall semester. We will determine whether these telescopes are operated in the spring of 1997 after we know the budget for the coming year. At the level of the President's request, operations could continue until the mosaic CCD imager is completed so that a wide field of view is available at the 4-m prime focus. If funding for FY 1997 is significantly below the President's request, then continued operation is not possible.
Even at today's funding level we do not have the resources to maintain the level of service and support that we have in the past. Accordingly, we are stopping all upgrades and improvements to three telescopes--the Schmidt, the Coude Feed, and the 0.9-m. We will continue to provide the basic maintenance that will keep them operable for the upcoming Fall semester. We will continue to provide appropriate start up support, which means that we will expect experienced observers to require only limited assistance. Where appropriate, we will suggest that users come one day early to gain a refresher course in observing by watching the previous observer.
We are reluctant to reduce observing support below this level. When the 0.9-m was restricted for one semester to experienced observers, applications dropped by about 30 percent. Limiting support restricts access for some people, particularly students, nearly as completely as does closing telescopes.
Elsewhere in this newsletter, we announce plans for closing both the 0.6-m and 1.0-m telescopes at CTIO. Both were equipped only with photoelectric photometers, and the demand for both has declined in recent years.
Demand for Small Telescopes
NOAO has not yet closed a telescope that was significantly (more than a factor of 2) oversubscribed. Demand must be a critical factor in determining priorities in astronomy. Can NOAO justify the continued operation of telescopes that are barely oversubscribed given the pressures on the NSF astronomy budget? When we removed the 0.9-m from KPNO to make room for WIYN, the demand for observations at this aperture had dropped to the point where all of the proposals could be accommodated on the two 0.9-m telescopes; in other words, there was no over-subscription, and removing one telescope at that point had the potential of raising the over-subscription only to a factor of 2.0. In the semester that we closed the 1.3-m at KPNO, the number of applications had dropped from an average of 34 per semester in the previous five years to only 11. We provided extra observing time to ongoing programs to ensure that they could be completed prior to closure, and basically the same capabilities were available at the 2.1-m. The drop in demand for the 1.3-m was probably caused by the fact that no new instrumentation was available for this telescope, which offered only photoelectric photometry and SQIID. The latter instrument was equipped with PtSi detectors with less than 5 percent quantum efficiency.
It is also true that, compared with five years ago, a significantly larger fraction of the observing time at KPNO now goes to users rather than to staff. Because of decreases in staff size (nearly a factor of 2 since 1980 when the staff received about 40 percent of the observing time) and an increase in functional responsibilities, the number of observing proposals submitted by NOAO staff to use KPNO has dropped by 25 percent since 1990/91.
At the present time, the Coude Feed is under-subscribed, probably because the majority of the interesting problems in stellar spectroscopy require larger aperture. We received no proposals for the Fall semester for solar-stellar programs that were previously supported at the McMath-Pierce. Unfortunately, the Coude Feed is the only place at NOAO where very high dispersion spectroscopy is possible. If the field of view were not an issue, the proposals for the 2.1-m and 0.9-m telescopes could be combined onto a single telescope, and the over-subscription would be about a factor of two.
In short, the available data indicate that the discussion of priorities must focus on capability not on the number of telescopes. Unless there is some radical change in the number of proposals received, there no longer appears to be sufficient demand from the community to justify the operation of the full suite of telescopes at Kitt Peak. A similar situation prevails for some of the telescopes at CTIO. Given the current number of observing proposals, the closures of the 0.6-m and 0.9-m telescopes at CTIO will not significantly impact most users.
Privatization
What happens to telescopes that NOAO can no longer afford to run? Ideas about privatizing the 1.0-m telescope at CTIO are discussed elsewhere in this newsletter. At the upcoming meeting of the AURA Observatories' Council, we will be discussing options for privatizing other telescopes. We welcome your advice on this issue, and we will certainly share our own ideas with the users before implementing any of them.
Continuity
Closing telescopes can become a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Most ground-based observing programs require more than one observing run, and people are undoubtedly reluctant to develop an observing program centered around a telescope or instrument that may have a short lifetime. In developing plans for the future--and these plans include sharing instruments among KPNO, CTIO, and Gemini--we will pay attention to this issue of maintaining capability long enough to ensure that programs can be completed. This means making sure that we do not eliminate any capability if at all possible, although the telescopes on which that capability is provided may change. It also means that when we do retire or move an instrument, we will make every effort to provide the extended observing runs needed to complete ongoing programs. For this reason, it would be helpful if observing applications give some indication of the potential scope of the program.
Instrumentation
Many respondents to the Web posting have indicated that they believe that providing new instrumentation should have lower priority than continued operation of existing telescopes. If we ever reach the point where we have to choose between continued operation of 4-m telescopes and new instrumentation, I might agree. I cannot, however, give higher priority to continued operation of telescopes for which there is low demand than to providing state-of-the-art instrumentation for the 4-m class telescopes and Gemini. Observing programs at NOAO are strongly determined by the available instrumentation. Demand for 4-m Mayall time, for example, dropped by 25 percent when we removed Hydra and transferred it to WIYN. We no longer receive observing proposals to work on quasar absorption lines because we cannot compete with Keck. The community is very quick to move to fields and instruments where KPNO has a competitive advantage--and equally quick to stop using instruments that have been eclipsed by developments at other observatories.
We estimate that the lifetime over which a new instrument is competitive is 5-7 years. Elsewhere in this newsletter is an article by Dick Joyce that describes what was available at KPNO five and ten years ago. The advances are truly impressive. If our instrumentation program had been frozen in time at either of those points, NOAO would today not be a relevant contributor to ground-based astronomy.
Instrumentation from Universities
Several of the responses to the Web posting have suggested that we should place greater reliance on the universities for instruments. We agree, and our five year instrument plan assumes that at least two significant instruments will be provided by outside groups. However, these outside groups will require compensation of some kind. It makes sense for NOAO to pay cash for instruments only if the costs are lower at universities, and so far we have no evidence that this is the case. Similarly, having NSF pay for instruments built at universities through the grants program is, apart from the potential involvement of students, an effective use of astronomy resources only if costs are lower. If NOAO instead provides guaranteed observing time in return for instruments, as we will probably do, then open access for the community is reduced. Whether or not the improved instrumental capability is worth the loss of observing time depends on the details of the agreement with the outside group and on the quality of the instrument produced.
Strategy
Some respondents have noted that other national observatories have chosen to maintain services to users rather than close telescopes. This choice, however, is not without a price. In addition to staff layoffs, NRAO has announced in its latest newsletter that unless an additional source of funds can be found, there will be no budget for equipment to improve the instrumentation at the telescopes or to address the Observatory computing needs. Within NOAO, NSO has similarly given priority to keeping all of its facilities open. I believe this strategy is appropriate when the facilities themselves are unique. Capability and sometimes an entire field of science can be lost by closure of a unique facility. Furthermore, even if the instruments at unique facilities are less than state-of-the-art, there are no competitors with which those facilities can be compared. KPNO and CTIO do not have this option. If we were still operating 58 x 62 IR arrays or small format CCDs or using photographic plates, all of which represented the state-of-the-art five or ten years ago, then it would be impossible for the nighttime user community to work at the forefront of the field.
Relative Costs
As has been pointed out frequently by users and as we are aware, the operation of small telescopes, provided the instrumentation is not replaced, is relatively small. However, the costs of improving the throughput of the 4-m telescopes are comparably small. For example, we could gain about 10 percent more observing time at WIYN by making the operation of the wavefront sensor more efficient and increasing the speed with which the fibers in Hydra are positioned. The cost of each project is about equivalent to the cost of operating the 0.9-m for a single year. And the improvement in WIYN throughput requires only a one time expenditure. Which should have the higher priority--operations of a small telescope or improvements at the large ones? And how does one weigh the 20 papers that are produced annually as a result of observations with a single small telescope against a 10 percent increase in the observing time and in the number of papers (a typical 4-m class telescope produces about 75 papers per year) from a large telescope?
Reductions in Budgets for Other Activities
Recent discussion has focused on the implications for the continued operation of telescopes of further decreases in the budget. Although we believe that we have exhausted alternatives for saving money, we continue to welcome advice for how to reduce costs still further without impacting telescope operations. We have already cut scientific staff; we have already compromised facilities maintenance; we have already cut back on the instrument program and the rate of delivery of instruments; we have already stopped building new instruments for any but 4-m class telescopes and Gemini. Detailed comparisons show that our administrative costs are below those of comparable organizations and that our costs of telescope operations are well below those of national observatories in other countries and surprisingly close to those of university observatories in this country. Many people have asserted that they could run NOAO less expensively. We are ready to sit down with any group that has a demonstrated track record of running telescopes to compare our costs and ways of doing business to try to identify further cost savings. We will look at recovering the costs of supporting those portions of IRAF not required to acquire and evaluate data from NOAO telescopes, but such cost recovery simply transfers the financial burden from NOAO to the community. It remains to be seen whether this is the best overall use of astronomy funding.
The Future
These are your observatories, and we do pay attention to your input. What was posted on the Web was an attempt to outline what I believe will be the inevitable consequence of following the McCray recommendations if we receive steady-state funding at the levels specified. The budgets given for telescope operations on the Web are, in my judgment, the minimum levels required for operation over the long term. If the budget falls below those levels, then telescopes or other programs will have to be gradually phased out. No one should think, however, that NOAO staff or management believe that a national observatory of the scope described on the Web would serve the user community well.
It is important to put the current situation in a broader perspective. We have already cut operations budgets by more than 30 percent over the last decade, if allowance is made for inflation, and we have improved user services and access in the process. Ultimately, however, the cuts become so deep that the program cannot be sustained, and we have tried to identify budget levels at which this occurs. While one can argue over the detailed cost estimates--and we are prepared to have every aspect of every budget line examined in detail--ultimately the outcome is the same. If the budget decreases every year, sooner or later NOAO will cease to operate some or all of its current programs.
In the meantime, we will continue to search for ways to reduce costs, we will take scientific productivity into account as we make program changes, and we will try to minimize the impact on both individuals and areas of astronomy of those program changes. We have already discussed the option of obtaining a wide field at larger aperture telescopes by using mosaics of CCDs. We may be able to preserve the capability for high resolution spectroscopy by feeding a spectrograph with a fiber from the focal plane of a large telescope rather than with the Coude Feed. We retired the FTS but will soon offer a high resolution IR spectrometer instead that will go several magnitudes fainter. The use of small telescopes is now nearly entirely for galactic astronomy; the current division of the KPNO TAC into galactic and extragalactic rather than bright and dark subcommittees should help to ensure that galactic astronomy proposals continue to receive support.
As a result of your earlier comments on the importance of wide field IR imaging, we have modified our ideas about the mix of telescopes and capabilities that we need to offer at both KPNO and CTIO. In response to your input and reservations about queue observing, we have modified the procedures at WIYN, including scheduling some runs in the conventional way with the observer present. NOAO staff and users must continue to talk--and listen--to each other as we work our way through the very difficult years that confront us.
Sidney C. Wolff