Download the original PowerPoint Presentation [34KB]

History

• Revision of Facility Instrumentation Program proposed by McCray committee
• Telescope System Instrumentation Program highest priority medium-sized initiative of AASC
• Factor of two between funds for instruments and value of nights a fundamental element of program
• Context of TSIP is “system of ground-based O/IR telescopes”, which is perspective advocated by AASC policy chapter.

Ground Rules FY 2002

• $4 Million in program
• NSF asked NOAO to administer
• Rules developed with input from AASC recommendations, ACCORD, NSF
• 2 types of proposals
  • Instrument: telescope time equal in value to 50% of funds granted
  • Improvement: telescope time equal in value to 100% of funds granted
• Limited to telescopes of aperture 6-m and larger

Timeline FY 2002

• AO issued December 5, 2001
• Letters of intent due January 18, 2002
  • 3 letters received
  • Review panel recruited based on expertise and non-conflict of interest; panel approved by NSF
    • A. Dressler (chair; OCIW), T. Greene (NASA/Ames), D. Fabricant (CfA), K. Hodapp (U.Hawaii), C. Stubbs (U. Wash.), T. Herter (Cornell), C. Pilachowski (Indiana U. ), D. Richstone (U. Michigan)
• Proposals due March 29, 2002
  • Page limit increased to 30 pages at request of proposers
  • 3 proposals received
  • Panel met once by telecon (April 29, 2002) and once in person (May 11, 2002)

Panel review outcome

• OSIRIS proposal ranked first
  • Scientifically interesting new capability
  • Relatively low risk
  • Access to Keck telescopes
  • Fully funded to completion
• KIRMOS second
  • Distinction between second and third close
  • Ambitious and interesting instrument
  • Early work should emphasize reduction of risk
  • Funding for one year only to establish viability
• MODS third
  • Proposal “solid” but not so exciting
  • Prospect of long wait for telescope time adversely affected ranking

General Panel recommendations

• Proposal instructions should be changed to increase emphasis on technical description of instrument
• Each year, the review panel should assess ongoing TSIP-funded projects
• No consensus on changing the 6-meter aperture limit
• Schedule should be advanced so that funding can be provided earlier in fiscal year

Timeline, continued

• TSIP report sent to NSF on June 19, 2002
• Boroson and Dressler visited NSF, presented results on June 26, 2002
  • NSF approved initiation of negotiations
• MOU with CARA for handling of telescope time signed July 29
  • Only change from proposal was restoration of Director’s discretionary time to calculation
• OSIRIS held CDR August 8-9, 2002
  • CARA invited TSIP participation
  • Review attended by Boroson and Trueblood
• OSIRIS contract signed & approved August 26
• KIRMOS contract signed & approved September 13

Items of interest in contracts

• Contracts are between AURA/NOAO and CARA
• Payments made annually (in advance)
• Effort made to adjust specific oversight activities to mesh with processes desired or already in place within CARA
  • Monthly, quarterly reports that are already part of CARA’s management process will be distributed to TSIP tech. Representative
  • Semi-annual report to be written by TSIP tech. Representative and publicly disseminated
  • CARA required to produce annual status report for TSIP review panel

Cost of administering TSIP

• FY 2002—total $35,500
  • Salaries (Boroson, Brouillette, Trueblood)
  • Review panel meeting
  • Travel to report to NSF
  • Travel to OSIRIS CDR
• FY 2003—est. $53K
  • Additional time for oversight activities
  • Additional travel for oversight activities

FY 03 expectations

• Advance schedule
  • AO to be released early October, 2002
  • Proposals due in February 2003
• Expect program funded again at $4M level
  • Have advocated increase to $5M/year as recommended by AASC
• Will try to use as much of first year review panel as is appropriate
• Proposal/instructions modified in accordance with review panel suggestions