Previous Article Next Article Table of Contents
US Gemini Project Office (1Sep92) (from the Director's Office, NOAO Newsletter No. 31, 1 September 1992) The Gemini project is undergoing a multi-tiered scientific review during the summer and early fall. The goal is to achieve consensus among the partner scientific communities about the scientific and performance requirements of the telescopes and the first-light configuration of foci and instruments. The intention is to obtain approval of these choices from the interim Gemini board at their November meeting. At that time, the telescope configuration for first light will be frozen, so that the project can proceed with a vigorous detailed design effort. Prioritizing the instrument complement may be more of an ongoing process, although the project will be given guidelines this fall on the committees' order of preference. You may have thought that the Gemini telescope concepts were relatively well defined, so why is there all this review activity? Based on the preliminary Science Requirements Document and a wish list for a full complement of versatile instruments, the project engineers engaged in preliminary design studies of the telescope systems. They then undertook a detailed costing exercise, based on the concepts developed and estimates from vendors for various components of the observatory. As expected, there were both areas of technical challenge and a total price tag for the full wish list that exceeded somewhat the ceiling that Congressional funding mandated. The aim of the current cycle of reviews is therefore to identify areas where a modification of requirements can reduce technical risk, to prioritize capabilities so that the most important ones are accomplished, and to identify ways to get the most scientific return on a fixed budget. The (international) Gemini Science Committee met in June in Tucson, and got their first exposure to the budget limits and trade-off options. Their recommendation was for an impartial expert review team to examine the Gemini project team's design and management strategy, along with the budget estimates, to provide the project director with advice on areas where technical improvements or cost savings were possible. That expert team, consisting of Alec Boksenberg (UK), Bev Oke (Canada), and Fred Chaffee (US), met in Tucson during the week of 13 July. Their recommendations were presented informally to the project prior to their departure and as a written report to the Director. During August and September, the National Science Advisory Committees are meeting in their respective countries. The US optical, IR, and joint committees met in Tucson on 13 and 14 August. They developed a strong consensus on the choice of final focal ratios and the order of their implementation at first light. The US advisory committees then provided a US position to the US project scientist for a week-long meeting of the Gemini project scientist and national project scientists in Tucson starting 24 August. The purpose of the project scientists meeting was to use the project engineering team work and previous recommendations as resources in forming a detailed recommendation for consideration at the Gemini Science Committee meeting on 14-16 September in Tucson. The perspective advanced to the US Science Advisory Committee is that the telescopes be designed to be identical, so that they can ultimately support the same full complement of instruments if desired. There is also theintention in the current planning to maintain support for telescope improvements and instrument development during the operations phase, so that the two facilities can be brought up to full capability over time. The active discussion for the present, then, is the first-light configuration that results from the construction-phase activities. The purpose of the US Gemini project office at NOAO is to support the involvement of US astronomers in the project; one such means is through these policy advisory activities. Your input on the priorities being established is valued, important, and welcome any time. Richard Green, US Project Scientist
Previous Article Next Article Table of Contents