Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents

CTIO/KPNO Users Committee Reprot (1Mar96)
(from Director's Office, NOAO Newsletter No. 45, March 1996)

			     Introduction

The CTIO/KPNO Users Committee met in Tucson on 8-9 December 1995.
Committee members present were Suzanne Hawley (Michigan State), Martha
Haynes (Cornell), David Koo (Santa Cruz), Elizabeth Lada (Maryland),
Robert Mathieu (Wisconsin), Patricio Ortiz (Chile), Marc Postman
(STScI), John Salzer (Wesleyan), Kristen Sellgren (Ohio State), Stephen
Shectman (Carnegie), Verne Smith (Texas), and George Wallerstein
(Washington). Seth Tuttle (NSF - NOAO Program manager) also attended
the sessions.

This marked the first time that the Users Committee met as a single,
merged group. Following discussions at the 1994 committee meeting and
recommendations made at the AURA sponsored Future of NOAO workshop last
March, it was decided to combine the CTIO and KPNO Users Committees.
The increased level of collaboration between CTIO and KPNO in many
areas (most notably instrumentation), as well as the commonality of
issues facing the two observatories, motivated the change. Of course,
there are still site-specific issues that required discussion, so the
joint committee split into CTIO and KPNO subcommittees for one session.
The reports of the observatory subcommittees are included as part of
this report.

The joint committee continued the practice established in the previous
year of requesting that written summaries of all reports presented by
the observatory staff be distributed prior to the meeting. This allowed
the committee members to familiarize themselves with the issues ahead
of time, and maximized the time available at the meeting for fruitful
discussions between the committee and the administration and staff of
NOAO. The committee heard reports from: Sidney Wolff on the state of
NOAO and the status of the renewal proposal to the NSF; Malcolm Smith
on the SOAR telescope project; Richard Green on the 2.4-meter telescope
initiative and the NOAO Instrumentation program; Todd Boroson on Gemini
and the US Project Office; Taft Armandroff on the Optical/UV
instrumentation projects; Ian Gatley on IR instrumentation projects;
George Jacoby on IRAF; Taft Armandroff and Dave De Young on plans for
restructuring the NOAO TACs; and David Silva on the queue scheduling
program at WIYN.

A important topic of discussion at the meeting was the feedback
generated by the inaugural issue of the NOAO Electronic Forum, a joint
project of the NOAO staff and the Users Committee. Many of the items
presented below benefited from the input by the user community; this
input helped to inform and shape our final recommendations.

         		  NSF Renewal Proposal

The committee was asked to comment on the draft of the renewal proposal
to the National Science Foundation. This became the central theme of
the meeting, since many of the specific items discussed hinged upon the
details of the renewal plan. It should be stressed that the committee
was not given the draft proposal to read, but rather saw only the
executive summary that was presented in the NOAO Electronic Forum.
While the summary was adequate for debating the pros and cons of the
general plan, it hindered our ability to weigh all of the
considerations due to the lack of full financial information (costs
versus savings for each element of the plan). However, the committee
was still able to make a number of recommendations.

The main focus of the discussion was on the specific telescope
configurations proposed for CTIO and KPNO, as well as the
instrumentation plans for each telescope. Related items, such as
operations and observing modes (e.g., queue scheduling) were also
discussed and are mentioned in separate sections below.

The plan calls for NOAO to operate three telescopes at each site. KPNO
would have the existing Mayall 4-meter, WIYN, and a new 2.4-meter
reflector optimized for wide-field imaging. CTIO would continue to
operate the Blanco 4-meter, and add the SOAR 4-meter and a 2.4-meter
that would be designed to accommodate the equipment for the Sloan
Digital Sky Survey should there be interest in continuing the survey in
the southern sky. Further details are available in the Electronic
Forum.

The committee endorsed the general outline of the renewal plan.
However, we did not feel that we had enough information about the
financial details to support the specifics of the current plan at this
time. In addition, we have some reservations about the mix of science
capabilities implied by the proposed plan; these are listed below.

We wish to stress that, while we feel that improvements could be made
to this specific plan, we are strongly in favor of the general approach
it presents. We believe that:

(1)  NOAO needs to operate at least 3 or 4 telescopes at both CTIO
and KPNO to properly support the telescope-access requirements of the
US community.

(2)  A mix of aperture sizes ranging from small (1-2 meter) to large
(4-meter, Gemini) is vital and scientifically well justified.

(3)  The older existing telescopes at both sites will become
increasingly less competitive in the coming decade, and current
planning should include new telescope initiatives to replace them.

(4)  Shutting down the smaller telescopes to reduce operating
expenses is, by itself, not a cost-effective measure, and would cripple
the ability of NOAO to carry out what its users perceive as its primary
mission: providing access to telescopes.

We believe that the renewal plan attempts to address these issues. The
input from the community, and our recommendations below, suggest ways
that the draft proposal can be modified to better serve the users.

A key scientific capability that appears to be missing in the future
NOAO envisioned in the draft proposal is wide-field IR imaging. 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. The new 2.4-meter telescopes are not planned to
support IR imaging due to their fast focal configuration. NOAO needs to
address this issue, by either rethinking the design specifications for
the 2.4-meter telescopes, or retaining the services of one of their
existing telescopes at each site (e.g., 2.1-meter at KPNO, 1.5-meter at
CTIO) as a dedicated IR imaging facility.

IR imaging capability is essential to support and complement the Gemini
telescopes. Nevertheless, the 2.4-meter telescopes should not simply be
switched entirely from optical imaging to IR imaging. The user
community desperately needs and wants improved access to wide-field
optical imaging as well. The committee was not sold on the need for
making the southern 2.4-meter telescope "Sloan capable." Although the
idea is certainly worth considering, the increased costs must be
balanced against the prospects for actually carrying out a southern
version of the survey. More investigation must be done on this issue.

Another capability that was mentioned frequently in the community
responses to the electronic forum was that of high-dispersion
spectroscopy for bright objects (a niche currently filled by the coude
feed at KPNO and the 1.5-m bench echelle at CTIO). The proposed plan
does in fact provide substantial access to this capability, since much
of the bright time on the new 2.4-meter telescopes is earmarked for
this type of observing. In the plan, the existing spectrographs (the
coude at KPNO and bench echelle at CTIO) would be illuminated by
optical fibers located at the cassegrain foci of the new telescopes.
This point was not made clear in the version of the plan presented to
the users.

Finally, we suggest that NOAO could respond to the criticisms made
about the lack of small telescopes in the renewal plan by making
provisions to offer continued access to one of the small telescopes on
each site (e.g., the 0.9-meters). Outfitted with a dedicated CCD
imager, they could be run in a nearly zero-maintenance, zero-support
mode so as to provide access for those projects that are not feasible
with the proposed 2.4-meter telescopes. This low-cost addition to the
proposed three telescope model would be welcomed by the user
community.

We urge the NOAO staff to continue to explore options that will lead to
the strongest possible renewal plan, one which the user community can
embrace and support.

        		    Instrumentation

NOAO's nighttime instrumentation program was another major topic of the
meeting. The current status of the program was reviewed (see the
December 1995 NOAO Newsletter for a summary), and various options for
future instruments were discussed. The committee makes the following
recommendations:

(1)  We endorse the current instrumentation plan as presented. Our
highest priorities for major instrument starts are the high-throughput
optical spectrograph for KPNO (for the Mayall 4-meter) and the near-IR
spectrograph (a clone of the Gemini North spectrograph) for CTIO. We
encourage the instrumentation group to seek community input for the
optical spectrograph design.

(2)  We support the plan by NOAO to look into building the GRASP
four-channel IR imager/spectrograph as a collaboration with Ohio State
University.

(3)  As stressed above, we see wide-field IR imaging as a priority
for NOAO that is currently not being met. Upgrading SQIID with four 512
square InSb arrays should be pursued as a stop-gap measure until GRASP
is completed.

(4)  We are concerned with the lack of usable CCD chips for the
Mosaic imager. The current plan is to use thick chips during the
initial deployment of the mosaic, then upgrade to science-grade thin
chips as they become available. We would like to see the mosaic in use
with quality thinned CCDs as early as possible, and therefore recommend
looking into purchasing the necessary chips off the shelf. In addition,
the committee wants to stress the need for completing the mini-mosaic
camera and installing it at the imaging port on WIYN as soon as
possible.

Items (3) and (4) were given equal priority by the committee as the
most important of the "smaller" projects for the coming year. If
resources allow, we would also encourage further investigation into
getting a low-order adaptive optics system for WIYN. We believe that
building a clone of the Mosaic Imager should be a high priority, but
that the current lack of CCDs made it a lower priority for the current
year. Ultimately, however, NOAO must have two mosaic cameras, one for
each of KPNO and CTIO. Finally, the committee strongly supports the
current ALADDIN array program, and feels that the detector development
for GRASP should be given priority in future years as resources become
available.

			Observatory Operations

This is a period of change for NOAO--restructuring is necessary and, in
the eyes of many, even desirable. But as plans for the future take
shape, the committee feels an obligation to remind NOAO (as well as
AURA and the NSF) of the primary need of the core constituents of NOAO
facilities: access to telescopes and state-of-the-art instrumentation.
Therefore, we summarize our main point in one simple statement: Do
whatever it takes to keep the existing telescopes open for as long as
they are scientifically viable and in demand. We hope that the budget
situation, while bleak, will be positive enough to enable the renewal
plan to be carried out. But until the new facilities are in place,
every effort must be made to maintain the current capabilities and
access for the users who rely on the national observatories.

We encourage NOAO to pursue vigorously university partnerships and
collaborations for new telescope and instrumentation projects. The WIYN
telescope project and the MACHO collaboration are positive examples of
how joint ventures can benefit the whole community. We hope that the
SOAR telescope and GRASP IR imager/spectrograph become additional
examples of the advantages of cooperative programs.

The current need for wide-field IR imaging has already been stressed.
In addition to modifying the renewal plan to include this important
capability, we urge NOAO to look into providing a short-term solution.
One option is to upgrade SQIID with InSb arrays and new controllers,
and then reopen the 1.3-meter at KPNO for part-time, single-instrument
use. The substantially higher sensitivity of the new arrays would make
this a unique facility.

The committee would also like to recognize the importance of continued
support for the IRAF group by NOAO. Although IRAF may not fall within
the category of an "observatory operation," it is a very visible and
vital service provided by NOAO. We reaffirm our support for this
indispensable part of the overall NOAO program.

       			   Queue Scheduling

The user community spoke out loudly on the issue of queue scheduling in
the Electronic Forum. Many relevant points were expressed, and the
feedback had a significant impact on the thinking of the committee
members as well as the NOAO staff. It should be pointed out that,
despite the wording of the Forum with regard to queue scheduling, there
was never a plan to run the new telescopes in a fully queue-scheduled
mode. Although this confusion led to a more spirited response than was
perhaps necessary, the points raised by the users were excellent. The
committee agrees with the assessment that certain types of projects are
best done in traditional observing mode, while other projects can be
carried out more efficiently in queue mode.

Many Forum respondents pointed out that queue observing is an untried
method and therefore a risky endeavor. The queue observing experiment
on the WIYN telescope is being carried out with the idea of learning
how to run a queue program successfully. The results from the first
(partial) semester show that, while this mode is promising, there are
still a number of issues that must be addressed to optimize the method.
Since WIYN itself is still going through its initial shakedown, both
the telescope and the queue procedure must mature before the success or
failure of the experiment can be determined.

The committee encourages NOAO to continue the queue experiment on WIYN
with the following specific recommendations for improving science
throughput and user satisfaction.

(1)  Modify the current "queue rule" whereby once a project gets
started, it remains active until the requested observations are
completed, regardless of how long it takes. The committee felt
strongly that the time spent observing on a given project should be
limited to the time actually allocated by the TAC. This would reduce
the effective turn-down rate (i.e., the percentage of projects that are
rejected by the TAC plus those placed in the queue but not observed).

(2)  Provide better feedback to the users by providing electronic
access to a queue status report.

(3)  Revise the proposal submission process to do away with the
Queue form before time is allocated. This form requires significant
effort for all proposers, many of whom will ultimately be turned down
by the TAC. The Queue form should be requested in a phase 2 process
after the proposal has been accepted.

(4)  Develop and implement the so-called Pole Watch camera to
provide a quantifiable estimate of the quality of the night. This is
important for all programs involving photometry.

		Access to Private Observatories Initiative

The report written by the Panel on Ground-based Optical and Infrared
Astronomy (the "OIR report") suggested that the NSF institute a new
program to fund instrumentation development at private observatories in
return for widespread community access to telescope time at those
observatories. This was suggested as a way for the NSF to leverage the
large amounts of money from private sources invested in large, new
telescopes, making them more scientifically fruitful. At the same time,
the community would gain access to a larger pool of telescope time.

We feel that it is important for NOAO to play a leading role in the
planning and implementation of such a program. At this point it is not
clear whether the NSF will be able to initiate such a program, but if
it does, NOAO should be heavily involved in establishing the guidelines
for community access. It should also serve as the interface between the
community and the private observatories, coordinating the program on
behalf of the US community.

The private observatory access program, however, can not and should not
be perceived as a way to replace the community's need for access to
NOAO facilities. One of the motivations for the program, as presented
in the OIR report, is to provide access to telescopes for the ~50% of
optical and IR astronomers who currently rely solely on NOAO
telescopes. However, it should be pointed out that the program will
likely provide no access to small telescopes for the general community,
since the instrumentation money provided by the NSF would almost
certainly be used to build equipment for the largest of the private
telescopes. Many astronomers who currently rely on NOAO telescopes for
their research will not be accommodated under the program. We urge the
NSF, NOAO, and representatives of the private observatories to work
together in cooperation to formulate a plan that benefits all members
of the community.

			TAC Reorganization

As NOAO enters the Gemini era, it will have to take on a number of new
responsibilities. One of these will be setting up a proposal review
process for the US portion of Gemini. In addition, if the proposed
program for community access to private observatories goes into effect,
NOAO would be the most likely candidate for handling the incoming
proposals. With this in mind, NOAO has been considering options for
ways to accommodate future telescope time applications and allocations.
One obvious point which has guided their plans: try to make the process
as simple as possible for the proposers. For example, having a single
proposal form for all telescopes (CTIO, KPNO, Gemini, community access
to private observatories) and a common submission deadline would be
highly desirable.

The committee was asked to comment on various suggestions made by the
staff and the current TACs about how the proposal process and future
TACs should be reorganized. In general, it was felt that the current
TAC process and divisions (CTIO and KPNO, bright and dark) works fairly
well. However, the anticipated influx of new proposals with the advent
of Gemini will require some changes. The committee discussed many
options, including how the TAC process works at other observatories
(including radio and space facilities). We recommend that NOAO maintain
a TAC system similar to the current one, with modest changes:

(1)  Retain the separate TACs for the northern and southern
hemispheres.

(2)  Split proposals by "Galactic" (including the solar system) and
"extragalactic" rather than bright and dark. TACs defined along
discipline lines (albeit very broad lines) make more sense for IR
observing.

(3)  Have separate TACs for Gemini and non-Gemini telescopes.
Proposals requesting time on more than one telescope (e.g., the current
"key projects") would go to the panel responsible for the largest
telescope in the proposal.

This reorganization changes the current TAC structure very little while
allowing for the necessary growth required by the Gemini telescopes.
There would be eight panels rather than the current four, which would
keep the level of work roughly the same. We strongly endorse the idea
of unifying the proposal process as much as possible.

			NOAO Management Structure

Following the unsuccessful search for a new director for KPNO, the
search committee recommended that NOAO reorganize its top-level
management structure to better reflect the current needs of the
organization. The committee asked to hear what progress had been made
in identifying the appropriate structure. The plan is not yet
finalized, but the current proposal is to reshape the NOAO management
along functional lines (as opposed to observatory sites). There would
be three Associate Directors below the NOAO Director, one for the
instrumentation program (KPNO, CTIO, Gemini), one for operations of
northern hemisphere facilities (KPNO, US Gemini Project Office, etc.),
and one for operations in the southern hemisphere (essentially the same
as the current CTIO Director). It was envisioned that an Assistant
Director for KPNO would be named and be under the direction of the
second of these Associate Directors.

The proposed management plan was not embraced unanimously by the
committee, but after much discussion we failed to arrive at a better
plan. Our biggest concern was the apparent lack of parity between CTIO
and KPNO. We feel that both KPNO and CTIO need strong advocates in the
management structure. This plan makes it unclear whether the
appropriate level of advocacy for KPNO will exist in the future.

			    Community Input

The Users Committee gives the Electronic Forum a very positive
endorsement. This new vehicle for feedback and debate provides a much
needed way for interested members of the astronomical community to
voice an opinion on potential changes that effect their national
observatory. In a sense, the Electronic Forum creates an extended Users
Committee. NOAO should make every effort to continue the Forum. We note
that not all issues confronting NOAO are appropriate for the Forum, and
it should not be used as a substitute for the NOAO Newsletter.
Suggestions for future topics include: details of the proposed
2.4-meter telescopes, pros and cons of queue scheduling, future
instrumentation plans, and revisions to the TAC organization and
procedures.

			KPNO Subcommittee

The KPNO subcommittee was made up of the following Users Committee
members: Haynes, Koo, Lada, Mathieu, Salzer (Chair), and Smith. The
subcommittee met for one session during the meeting to hear
presentations and discuss issues that were specific to the operations
of KPNO. We heard reports by David Silva on the performance of WIYN,
from Bruce Bohannan on mountain operations and improve-ments, from Taft
Armandroff on instrumentation, and from Sidney Wolff (acting KPNO
Director) on the general status and outlook for KPNO.

Many of the recommendations the committee made regarding KPNO have
already been included in the NOAO-wide items. Therefore, we add only a
few additional points here.

We are extremely pleased to see WIYN coming online, and commend David
Silva and rest of the staff for bringing the project to such a
successful conclusion. While there is still work to be done, it appears
that WIYN will ultimately be a huge success. Likewise, we were happy to
hear about the improvements made at the 4-meter to improve the image
quality there, and we look forward to having the 4-meter prime focus
corrector and the new GoldCam camera finished and in use by the end of
1996.

Some members of the committee were worried about the high rate of
turnover among the telescope operators on Kitt Peak. They expressed
concern over the lack of continuity in these vital positions, and urged
that steps be taken to enhance the job quality and growth opportunities
for the operators to help reverse this trend.

We support the new Graduate Student in Residency program, which
provides opportunities for students to make extended visits to KPNO to
both carry out observations for their theses and to work on the
mountain in order to gain experience with the equipment and day-to-day
operations. This is a great way for students to both learn and to be
able to contribute something (their time, energy and ideas) in return.

Finally, the committee is deeply concerned with the budget situation
and its impact on KPNO over the next few years. Although no crisis is
forecast for the current year (due to a fortuitous number of staff
retirements), the future prospects remain gloomy. We urge the director
to continue to look for ways to support the telescopes and avoid
further shutdowns even as the budget continues to shrink. A number of
suggestions were outlined in last years report that should be
reconsidered. We emphasize strongly that closing the small telescopes
in a moment of budget crisis is inappropriate. Rather, NOAO should
develop a plan now to operate the mountain with fewer staff, so that
when the budget crunch comes the plan can be implemented without
cutting more telescopes.

			CTIO Subcommittee

The CTIO subcommittee consisted of Hawley (Chair), Ortiz, Postman,
Sellgren, Shectman, and Wallerstein. It heard from CTIO director
Malcolm Smith during the subcommittee session.

A recurring theme at CTIO is the small size of the scientific staff and
the resulting burdensome workload for each staff member. The committee
recognizes that the budget situation is difficult, but urges that NOAO
and the NSF find a solution that will provide some relief for the
scientific staff. The current situation is unstable and valuable people
and knowledge may be lost if something is not done soon.

Excellent progress has been made in promoting public awareness of light
pollution in the cities near CTIO. We applaud the CTIO staff efforts
and encourage further vigilance in this area.

We were pleased to hear that discussions with both Yale and Michigan
are underway concerning the future of the 1-meter and Curtis Schmidt
telescopes. A possible collaboration between Yale and Portugal to
upgrade the 1-meter and take over operations in the next few years was
enthusiastically endorsed. The continuing MACHO collaboration was also
discussed and given a strong statement of support. Funds available from
the MACHO project have provided for much needed upgrades to the small
telescopes at CTIO.

The 4-meter image quality project has now resulted in greatly improved
median seeing and we acknowledge the hard work of the CTIO staff in
carrying out these improvements. Implementation of a tip/tilt system is
the next highest priority project for the coming year.

Discussion about specific CTIO instrumentation needs led to the
recommendation that an IR camera is a top priority, and also that it is
vital to get Phoenix to the south as soon as possible, and to share it
equally with KPNO. The Arcon development program was discussed, and
concern expressed over the expense of this effort. The program is now
ramping down, pending a final decision by Gemini--as of August 1995,
Gemini had decided to explore other controller options.

Ortiz presented the views of the Chilean astronomers about the renewal
plan. The committee was pleased to hear that their views were very
similar to those of the US community (as discussed elsewhere in this
report) and that the Chilean and US astronomers share the same concerns
about closing small telescopes, while also endorsing in principle the
idea of renewing and replacing aging facilities. The 10% of telescope
time allocated from each telescope to Chilean astronomers was not seen
as a major stumbling block to the renewal proposal as long as continued
access to several telescopes and excellent instrumentation was assured.
Cooperation between the Chilean and US communities will be a vital
component to the continued success of CTIO.

In response to continuing budget shortfalls, travel support within
Chile will no longer be offered except for thesis students, and various
other cost cutting measures may have to be taken (raising rents,
raising motel rates, laying off staff, etc.). The committee strongly
endorsed the plan to cut everything else first, before closing
telescopes. The committee also urges the NSF to acknowledge the current
strength of the Chilean economy which is resulting in increased costs
within Chile, and to budget for the projected exchange rates well in
advance.

			   Concluding Remarks

Astronomers today live in a privileged time. We are in the midst of the
greatest explosion in major new optical and IR facilities in the
history of the science. In five to ten years, the number of telescopes
with apertures greater than 6-meters in diameter will be of order 15!
Yet the members of the US community who rely on the national
observatories will have access to the equivalent of only one of these
telescopes. In a time when the growth in both facilities and technology
will lead to outstanding opportunities for many astronomers, the
budgetary problems facing NOAO threaten to hold many more back. We feel
that this is bad for the entire community and for astronomy as a whole.
The Users Committee members would like to stress to all members of the
US community the need to work together to ensure a healthy future for
our field.

As always, the users of NOAO are urged to speak out, both as advocates
for your facilities and as a source of suggestions for improvements to
NOAO. The Users Committee members seek your input. We hope that as many
of you as possible will participate in future Electronic Forum issues.
Your input does make a difference--the results have certainly
influenced our thinking as well as that of the NOAO staff and
administration. To subscribe to the Forum, simply send a blank e-mail
message to forum-subscribe@noao.edu. The Users Committee represents a
direct link between the individual NOAO users and the management of the
observatories. Please contact next year's Chair, Suzanne Hawley
(slh@pillan.pa.msu.edu) with your comments and ideas.

John Salzer (Wesleyan University, Chair)

Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents