Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope
Science Working Group
September,11 2002
|
Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope Science Working Group September,11 2002 |
September 11, 2002
Meeting Minutes:
Participants: Rolf Kudritzki, Betsy Gillespie, Paul
Ho, Doug Johnstone, Matthew Colless, Terry Herter, Larry Stepp, Jeremy Mould,
Sam Barden, Arjun Dey, Joan Najita, Steve Strom, Doug Simons, Mike Bolte, Knut
Olsen Jonathan Lunine, Claire Max, Chris McKee, Chic Woodward, Ray Carlberg, and
Jill Bechtold.
INTRODUCTION
(1) Rolf introduced three new members:
Chris McKee, Jonathan Lunine and
Ray Carlberg
With the nomination of Ray to
serve, Doug Johnstone will retire from the committee, with thanks from us all
and the agreement to contact him for help re ISM and star formation
problems.
Alan Dressler has been contacted
and is still considering the offer to serve
(2) Wayne Van Citters has been
contacted by Rolf. He will compose a letter to the AAS membership describing the
role of the GSMT SWG and has agreed to serve as NSF contact 'pro-tem' until a
replacement for Dan Weedman has been identified. We look forward to interacting
with Wayne at our next meetings.
(3) Rolf requested that the SWG
website be given the appearance of even greater independence from the NOAO/NIO
website so that it is clear that the group is a creature of the NSF.
ACTION: Strom to work with Stepp
and Novack to develop models for better presenting the website to the
world.
(4) The committee agreed to focus
its efforts to reviewing the role of GSMT in the science areas identified in the
18 July meeting.
Presentations and Action
Items
(1) Science leads presented
summaries of the key science enabled by GSMT in the era of NGST and ALMA. Copies
of the presentations will be posted on the SWG
website.
ACTION: Novack to gather electronic
versions of the presentations from Stepp and to post them on the
site.
(2) ACTION items
follow:
(i) quantify science case and requirements for spectroscopic observations of KBOs (Lunine)
(ii) develop the science case for
high mass star-formation science with
emphasis on IMFs in rich, dense clusters and direct detection
and
characterization of disks (Strom working with Olsen,
McKee).
Identify simulations needed to
evaluate performance of 'real' AO
systems. These would include:
(a) adopting realistic MCAO point
spread functions, taking into account
short-term variability in the IPSF; apply to crowded field
photometry
in support of the rich cluster IMF problem (Rigaut working
with Max and Olsen; support from R. Blum
at CTIO
(b) evaluating the feasibility of detecting low surface brightness disks using plausible high performance AO systems (Max and Rigaut).
(iii) model detectability of tidal
gaps produced by giant planets embedded
in accretion disks (Max and Rigaut working with Lunine;
Ho); see ii-b
above
(iv) Develop quantitative understanding of the detectability of giant planets as a function of planet mass; age; angular separation as a function of: telescope diameter; assumed performance of extreme-AO/coronagraph combinations (Max; Lunine; Herter; Najita).
Max reported that much of this
supporting work has been done
in support of the CELT science case.
Extend the above to spectroscopic
characterization of planets
(achievable sensitivity; resolution requirements) (Lunine; Herter;
Najita)
(v) carry out realistic simulations
of crowded field photometry aimed at
parsing stellar population components of galaxies; include
the
effects of PSF variation as a function of position; short-term
time
variability (Rigaut; Max; Olsen; Bolte). Understand quantitatively
the
'returned science' as a function of MCAO field of view
(Olsen).
Develop quantitative understanding
of the trades between (much lower)
Strehl optical, and higher Strehl near-infrared
photometry
(vi) develop a quantitative understanding of the sample sizes required in order to map the gaseous and galactic components of the early universe by comparison with numerical simulations.
Understand the trades
among: FOV; telescope diameter; multiplex
advantage. (Colless; Carlberg; Dey).
Also quantify the potential gains from 'enhanced seeing'
performance
(Colless; Rigaut).
(vii) outline the elements of the
science cases for galaxy cluster evolution;
galaxy morphology evolution; determining cosmological
parameters; constraining evolution of physical
constants (Colless; Mould; Carlberg; Bechtold;
Gillespie)
(viii) summarize the requirements for AO (all science task leads). Forward these requirements to Strom and Max who will synthesize the summaries and develop a prioritized list of needed simulations.
An AO task group (Rigaut; Max;
Strom) will develop and circulate
a simulation plan. As a minimum subset, the crowded field
and
high contrast scence will be attacked.
(ix) develop the case for Galactic Center
science (focus on potential of astrometry to probe the vicinity of
the black hole). (Ho, via
discussions with Ghez and others as needed).
(x) develop an 'integration time calculator'
to provide a common basis
for quantitative estimates. Build on NIO and CELT work. The
goal
should be rapid circulation of common assumptions
regarding
detector characteristics; atmospheric properties; etc.
and dissemination of 'beta-testing'
level tools before the end of 2002. (Gregory will take the lead; working
with Bolte).
(xi) further develop the QSO/AGN cases and quantify comparison with NGST capabilities (Bechtold).
(xii) distribute all materials
circulated at the 29 July meeting to new
members. (Novack).
(xiii) Can McKee review the science
cases, identify links to key problems
in high energy physics, and contact team leads with
recommendations
re making/expanding those links?
(xiv) Bolte will contact Thorsett
&Woosley re potential i GRB programs.
Preparation for (late)
October SWG Meeting
(1) Science leads will prepare
power point presentations and distribute them to the SWG one week
prior to the meeting. The presentations should adhere to the following
template:
(i) brief statement of the problem
(ii) key measurements needed to
solve the problem
(iii) current status; contribution
of 6-10m telescopes to its solution
(iv) quantitative summary of the
need for a next generation telescope
(v) instrument/detector/AO
requirements
(vi) science return as a function of key telescope parameters: diameter; FOV; multiplex advantage; AO performance; wavelength coverage; emissivity......
(vii) synergies
with/complementarities to ALMA; GSMT; Planck; SNAP: Constellation-X; Herschel....................
Much more attention needs
to be paid to this and presenters will be asked to identify
quantitative
arguments or the process needed to develop
same.
(viii) identification of key issues
that require further research; simulations;
calculations.
Leads will consult with the working
group members outlined in the July 29 minutes (posted on the GSMT SWG
website); with newly-added members of the working group; and with
outside consultants as needed.
Goals of the October SWG
Meeting
(1) Review the adaptive optics
roadmap and provide feedback to the CfAO-NIO working group
prior to its presentation to the CAA in December,
2002.
(2) Review science cases and
identify issues for clarification; simulations; etc. prior to the late
January, 2003 meeting of the SWG.
(3) Identify mechanisms for quantifying the relationship between 'returned science' and key telescope/instrument performance parameters -- a key precursor to evaluating the efficacy of design concepts
(4) Define and assign tasks (simulations; science-vs-performance parameters) to be completed before JAN 03 SWG meeting.
To accomplish these tasks will require a two-day meeting. Holly Novack will contact SWG members and NIO support staff to ascertain their availability during the period 23 October to 24 November. She will work with Kudritzki to ensure Wayne's availability.
Presentations:
Seismology of Solar-Type Stars
Appendix 2.D Star and Planet formation with a GSMT
Towards a GSMT Science Case: Large Scale Structure and Cosmology
Holly Novack / hnovack@noao.edu / December 6, 2003