Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
A Strateg,tþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Panel on Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy was convened to determine Astronomy occupies a special place in the whether the strategic balance of support by the research portfolio of this country. NSF for all of optical and infrared (OIR) Understanding the cosmos is one of the oldest astronomy should be adjusted as these giant new intellectual goals of humanity, and the telescopes come on line. In particular, the panel discoveries of astronomers clearly excite the was asked to articulate a new mission for imagination of the public at large. From NOAO. In doing so, the panel had to address primary schools to universities, from planetaria several complex questions. What is the best to features in the media, astronomy offers role for NOAO in U.S. participation in the IGP? numerous opportunities to improve the scientific How can the unique resources of both private literacy of this nation, and astronomers are and NOAO facilities best be deployed? What increasingly engaged in these educational priorities and strategies should be pursued, activities. recognizing that NSF resources for OIR Although for many people astronomy is a astronomy will probably be severely clear example of one of the noblest of basic constrained? research activities, it is often less recognized The panel believes that first priority must that it can and does contribute to other national be given to the development of unique goals. In particular, its research activities telescopes and instrumentation that advance depend on and contribute to the applied technology and provide resources ofnational development of sophisticated sensors, an scope. The Gemini telescopes, the large essential enabling technology for many telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American scientific fields and for the defense, medical, Observatory (CTIO), and the Advanced and commercial sectors, Technologies and Instrumentation (ATI) Modern astronomical facilities, and their program of the NSF's Division of Astronomical sophisticated instrumentation, utilizing state-of- Sciences are clearly in this category. the-art detectors, computing resources, and The panel finds that the case for increased optical design, are expensive. Astronomers are OIR funding is strong within NSF for operating fortunate that the Congress has authorized the the Gemini telescopes. However, it is necessary construction of numerous major national to face the possibility that NSF funding of OIR facilities. National ground-based astronomical astronomy will remain level in real dollars for facilities are supported primarily by the some time. In this eventuality, the panel National Science Foundation (NSF), both in the recommends that the proper instrumentation and construction and operations phases. The two operation of the Gemini telescopes should have 8-meter telescopes of the international Gemini first priority. The panel also affirms the high 8-M Telescopes Project (IGP), in which the priority for the ATI program, which was United States is a 50Yo partner, are currently recommended by the Astronomy and under construction and will be completed by the Astrophysics Survey Committee (AASC) report end of the decade. Considerable investment (The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and (more than $250 M in the past decade) in large Astrophysics, National Academy Press, telescopes has also been made with nonfederal TVashington, D.C., 199 l). support, such that private observatories now The panel concludes that, with level provide 81% ofthe total telescope area (and funding, major reductions in NOAO operations 760/o of the net diameter) available to U.S. would be required to meet the priorities stated astronomers. Still, roughly half of U.S. above. In this constrained situation the Tucson astronomers must rely entirely on the National scientific, administrative, and technical services Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) for support would have to be scaled back very access to telescopes, and nearly all rely on substantially. The level of support and NOAO facilities for some aspects of their work. convenience offered to observers would have to
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy be reduced, and it is very likely that the smaller The panel recommends that a third strategy telescopes at the Kitt Peak National Observatory be pursued, if further funds are available. In (KPNO) would need to be closed or privatized. this strategy, the NSF astronomy budget would Moreover, to reduce operations costs, the be supplemented by $l0l\{,iyear. The first 4-meter Kitt Peak telescope would have to be $5.5 M would be used as above for Gemini operated with fewer instruments and used operations, and the balance would be used to primarily for wide-field or near-infrared support an augmented program for facility applications. In this case, a large number of instrumentation grants. Independent astronomers whose only access to front-line observatories would be able to compete for research tools is through NOAO telescopes these grants, which would be awarded strictly would be unable to carry out their research and on the basis of scientific merit, but for which U.S. science would suffer. cost sharing, in the form of open access to the The panel has identified a strategy that astronomical community at large, would be a might alleviate such problems and, at the same requirement. Such a program would enable full time, better utilize the very large recent utilization of the enormous investment in both expenditure by the private sector in the federal and nonfederal capital in OIR construction ofnewtelescopes. Specifically, telescopes. the panel recommends the initiation of a new The panel recognizes that when new, state- program at a modest level within the NSF for of-the-art facilities are brought on line, older instrumentation of the privately operated facilities must be retired. All of the options telescopes in exchange for national access. In a outlined above include such painful downsizing. constrained budgetary scenario, such funds In the draconian, flat-budget scenario, the would, of necessity, come from existing NSF community would lose truly first-rate OIR astronomy activities, including the existing instruments, but even in the optimal plan, major ATI program. Even with this new plan, some economies in operations would still be required. 1200 observer nights would be lost, approximately 40% of the present use by the U.S. astronomy community atNOAO nighttime facilities. The above plan is the best that the panel can envision under a flat-budget scenario. But the panel finds the costs in human, educational, and scientific terms to be unacceptably high. In view of the major capital investments in the Gemini telescopes and other major new telescopes, the panel recommends a second strategy, contingent on the availability of additional funds. Specifically, the panel recommends that $5.5 M/year be added to the NSF astronomy budget for international Gemini project operations. If this recommendation is implemented along with the proposed new instrumentation plan, it would allow for far more efficient utilization of existing telescopes. It would still be necessary to slim down the Kitt Peak/Tucson operations, but the consequences for the U.S. astronomy community would not be as draconian as they would be under the first strategy alone.
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy I. INTRODUCTION recommendations regarding NSO might have a major impact on the national strategy for solar The charge to the Panel on Ground-Based research. The OIR Panel did not have the Optical and Infrared Astronomy was as follows: expertise or resources to evaluate this impact properly. Therefore, the chairs of the L Assess the context in which optical and Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics and infrared astronomy will be pursued in the the OIR Panel discussed this issue with Hugh coming decade, including existing and Van Horn of the NSF and reached the planned instruments worldwide, NASA understanding that the OIR Panel was expected missions, and likely technological not to make major recommendations regarding developments. This examination must solar facilities, but only to point out the consider the appropriate mission for the potential impact on solar physics that its National Optical Astronomy Observatories recommendations for NOAO might have. (NOAO); the most effective use of The strategy recommended is intended National Science Foundation (NSF) funds generally to follow the recommendations of the for support of facilities, instrument 1991 NRC report of the Astronomy and development, and research; and how best to Astrophysics Survey Committee, The Decade of structure our efforts to meet the challenges Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics ofthe next decade. (hereafter, the AASC report; National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.), taking into account 2. Within this context, evaluate the mission of developments that have occurred since that the NOAO and define its optimal role report was written. (including both nighttime and solar The goal of the recommended strategy activities) relative to that of other must be to achieve the best science from the government facilities and optical and NSF investment in OIR astronomy. The total infrared astronomy (OIR) university U.S. investment in astronomy includes the observatories and research departments. capital investment and operating funds from This evaluation will take into account both federal, state, and private sources that support the research and educational roles ofthe the NOAO and many independent observatories organizations. as well as the pool of talented astronomers who use these facilities. These astronomers, most of 3. Suggest and evaluate alternative strategies whom teach at colleges and universities, not designed to optimize progress in the field, only advance our knowledge of the universe and taking into account the funding available the frontiers of technology required to gain this from various federal and nonfederal knowledge, but also impart their knowledge and sources and projections for the future. skills to a much greater number of students and Give advice for strategies and priorities to the public. within OIR astronomy in light of the As the panel describes in Sections II and expectation that the NSF resources III, the infrastructure of OIR astronomy is available for these programs will be complex and the scientific opportunities are severely constrained in the coming decade. enoffnous. The major share of NSF funding of OIR astronomy goes to the support of the The OIR Panel was concerned about the NOAO, and the greatest current federal capital reference to solar activities at NOAO in item 2 investment in OIR astronomy is the U.S. share of the charge. Since the National Solar (50%) of the international Gemini telescopes Observatories (NSO) at NOAO constitute a currently under construction. Therefore, major part of the national infrastructure for solar strategic advice for NOAO and for NOAO's physics, the panel was concerned that role in the international Gemini 8-M Telescopes
A Strategyþr Ground-Based OptÃcal and Infrared Astronomy Project (IGP) is a vital element of a national recommendation was for an infrared-optimized strategy for OIR astronomy. These issues are 8-meter telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, and addressed in Section IV. the third-priority recommendation was for a Astronomy enjoys a unique place among Southern Hemisphere 8-meter telescope. (The the physical sciences in that most of the OIR second priority was for the Millimeter Array.) telescopes in the United States, including the The NSF responded to these recommendations largest ones, were built and are operated with through a commitment to support 50% of the private and state funds (see Section II). Thus, to international Gemini project. Two 8-meter optimize the scientific return of the NSF Gemini telescopes are currently under investment in OIR astronomy, it is necessary to construction; GeminiNorth (Plate 1) is consider a strategy to provide instrumentation scheduled to be fully operational in 2000, and for the independent observatories that own these Gemini South in 2003. telescopes. A recommended strategy, which For moderate ground-based facilities, the includes a provision for national access to these first-priority recommendation of the AASC facilities, is presented in Section V. report was to develop adaptive optics facilities The panel interpreted the reference to to reduce image distortion by atmospheric severely constrained resources in item 3 of the turbulence. The NSF has responded to this charge as a mandate to consider a scenario in recommendation by increasing substantially its which the NSF annual funding of OIR funding of adaptive optics instrumentation. astronomy would have zero growth for the This effort enjoys major contributions from the remainder of the decade (in constant 1994 Department of Defense, which has undertaken dollars). In this scenario, options would be very to declassiff its advanced technology for limited, and drastic cuts would be necessary. adaptive optics, and from the Department of However, in view of the major capital Energy. These agencies support very promising investment in astronomy from both federal and programs in laser guide star technology at the private sources, and substantial growth in the Air Force Phillips Laboratory and the Lawrence number of astronomers, the panel considered Livermore National Laboratory, respectively. scenarios in which the NSF base budget for OIR The potential scientific yield of adaptive optics astronomy would be increased during the technology is enormous. Most of the work to coming decade by an amount comparable to that develop and deploy this technology remains to required to support Gemini operations. Such an be done; but, as the recent infrared images of increase would enable the United States to the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with realize fully the enorrnous scientific potential of Jupiter demonstrate, astronomers are already the nation's telescopes. beginning to realize the benefits. The AASC report's second-priority recommendation for moderate ground-based II. THE STATUS OF OIR facilities was for the development of facilities ASTRONOMY and technology for OIR interferometry. The NSF has responded to this recommendation by The AASC Report increasing its support of technology development for this area. The twin 1O-meter The panel first summarizes briefly the Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea, the first of recommendations of the AASC report regarding which is now operational and the second of OIR astronomy and the new developments that which is currently under construction, will have occurred since that report was written. provide a major new facility for OIR Substantial progress has been made toward interferometry. achieving the AASC report's recommendations The AASC report's third-priority for new facilities in OIR astronomy. For major recommendation for moderate ground-based new ground-based facilities, the fi rst-priority
A Strategt þr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy facilities was for the construction of several new facilities without an increase in the net funding 4-meter-class telescopes, supported insofar as for astronomy. For example, sufficient funds possible through a combination of federal, state, for the support of the infrastructure of other and private funds. Substantial progress has been unique facilities, such as the National Radio achieved toward this goal with the successful Astronomy Observatory's (NRAO) Very Long completion of the 3.5-meter ARC telescope at Baseline Anay (VLBA) and Very Large Array Apache Point, New Mexico, operated by a (VLA), have not materialized, and these consortium ofstate and private institutions and instruments are currently operating in a less than funded partially by the NSF, and the 3.S-meter optimal fashion. Wisconsin-Indiana-Yale-NoAo (WIYN) A major problem for the NSF is to identifo telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory the funds required to operate the U.S. share of (KPNO), constructed and operated by a the IGP without encroaching on individual consortium of private and state universities and research grants or impacting the operations of the NOAO. These excellent telescopes are other important facilities. To do this in a demonstrating the high scientific performance constrained budget scenario will require a enabled by new technologies and the financial further focusing ofpriorities and resources at efficiency of cost-sharing arrangements. More NOAO. While NOAO might achieve further such telescopes are needed, however, most effi ciencies, certain telescope- instrument urgently in the Southern Hemisphere. combinations would probably have to be closed The AASC report's highest-priority if NOAO were required to absorb the full cost recommendation for ground-based astronomy of the U.S. share of Gemini operations. was not for new facilities, however. It was for Furthermore, NOAO's ability to develop new the "strengthening ofthe infrastructure for instruments and telescopes and to meet the research, that is, increased support for observing needs of the nation's astronomers individual research grants and for the would be seriously impaired by such a maintenance and refurbishment of existing requirement. frontier equipment at the national observatories" (pp. 12-13). In particular, the AASC report Current Resources for OIR Astronomy recommended that "the NSF should include The NSF Astronomy Budget appropriate financial provision for operation of Figure I illustrates the distribution of the any new telescope in the plan for that facility," NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences 1994 and that "individual research grants be increased funding (total is approximately $105 M, to an adequate and stable fraction of the NSF's excluding the $17 M construction costs of the total operations budget for astronomy. In order to gather and analyze the large amounts of data IGP). The dark shaded area represents support of radio astronomy, through the NRAO, the that will become available with new National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center instrumentation, to allow young researchers to (NAIC) at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and the take advantage ofthe new opportunities for independent radio observatories. The hatched discovery, and to restore support for theoretical "other" portion ofthe grants program supports astrophysics, the individual grants budget primarily individual research grants in should be increased by $10 million per year" (pp. l3-la). theoretical and computational astrophysics and in radio, solar, and planetary astronomy. (Of The NSF Division of Astronomical course, many individual investigations are also Sciences has not yet been able to implement supported by NSF through grants to fully this paramount recommendation of the observatories.) The white segment of Figure 1 AASC report. Moreover, the NSF will find it represents support primarily for OIR astronomy, impossible to address this recommendation or including grants to individual investigators, the remaining recommendations for new development grants from the Advanced
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy Technologies and Instrumentation (ATI) the VLBA. Excluding VLBA construction, the program, and the OIR part of NOAO. The black NRAO operating budget increased by about segment of Figure 1 represents support of solar 23o/o,from $23.6 M in 1985 to $29.0 M in 1994. astronomy through the NSO and the Global The NOAO budget, excluding Gemini Oscillation Network Group (GONG) project. construction but including the GONG project, decreased by about I0o/o,from $30.5 M in 1985 SOLAR 140.00 8.5 120.00 1 00.00 n GEMTNT CONST. = 80.00 n NoAo o o 60.00 n ATr otR 19.0 40.00 T GRANTS 20.00 m RADTO OBS. 0.00 lltr NArc O@F@OOFNOS @o@@@ooooo oooooooooo Jü NRAO YEAR ATt8.2 NA|C 8.3 Figure 2. History of funding of NSF Division of RADIO Astronomical Sciences from 1985 to 1994. Funding oBS.7.2 primarily for radio astronomy, including NRAO, OTHER NAIC, and the independent radio observatories, is 16.7 shown with a vertical shiped pattern, The NRAO wedge includes funds for construction of the VLBA but not the $75 M funding appropriated by Congress Figure 1. Distribution of NSF Division of in 1989 for construction ofthe Green Bank telescope. Astronomical Sciences 1994 funding ($M; total is The NAIC wedge includes funds for the Arecibo approximately $105 M). telescope upgrade. Funding primarily for OIR astronomy, including the ATI program, NOAO Figure 2 shows the history of funding of (including solar astronomy), and Gemini construction, is shown as white. Funding of grants to astronomy research by the NSF in the decade individual investigators, including grants for OIR from 1985 to 1994. The net funding (in astronomy but excluding grants for the ATI program constant 1994 millions of dollars, corrected for and the independent radio observatories, is shown as inflation) decreased by about SYofrom 1985 to black. 1990, then increased to a maximum in 1992 of about $118 M (excluding Gemini construction), or about $130 M (including Gemini), and has to $27 .5 M in 1994. The funding of grants to decreased thereafter. The funding of astronomy, individual investigators decreased by as a fraction of the total NSF Mathematical and approximately 78%o, from $25.8 M in 1985 to Physical Sciences Directorate budget, has $21.1 M in 1993, but was restored in 7994 to decreased from 19.3Yo in 1984 to l7.2%o in $25.0 M, 3% less than the 1985 level. The two 1994, excluding major capital construction most significant qualitative changes are the projects such as Gemini. Including them, the increase by a faetor 3.5 ofthe budget for the fraction has decreased from 19.3%to 78.4o/o ATI program, from approximately $2.5 M in during the same decade. 1985 to $8.7 M in 1994, and the construction Some redistribution of funding within the budget for the international Gemini project. NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences budget As noted by the AASC report, the shortage is evident in Figure 2. The rapid decrease in the offunding to support research by individual NRAO budget after 1992 may be attributed to investigators has become acute. This remains the termination of funding for construction of true despite the fact that the NSF grants
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy program was restored in 1994 to approximately the cost to do so will rise to approximately the 1985 level, because the number of $2.5 M by 2003. With level funding, NOAO astronomers (measured either by the number of can support U.S. scientific access to Gemini members of the American Astronomical Society only by reducing support of other activities that or by the number of papers published in the it currently supports. Astrophysical Journal and the Astronomical Journal) has increased by approximately 40Yo during the same decade' (Much of this growth can be attributed to rapid growth of NASA programs in space astrophysics.) Astronomy is a growing science, and that has resulted in keener competition, both for research grants and for access to facilities at the national observatories. The Gemini Proiect National Science Foundation funding for ú@@oNt the U.S. commitment of $88 M to support 50% à õoooo õõãtooo of the costs to build the two 8-meter Gemini ==-NNN YEAR telescopes (including an initial complement of instruments) commenced in 1991. The U'S' Figure 3. U.S. funding of Gemini operations, funding profile for Gemini construction is front- showing the U.S. 507o commitment for operations of the Gemini telescopes through the IGP and also the loaded, and the obligation will be met with the cost estimated by NOAO for the USGPO to support final U.S. payment of $41 M in 1995. But then, U.S. scientific access. the NSF is committed to pay the IGP 50% of the Gemini operations costs, including instrument upgrades. Figure 3 shows the NSF commitment NOAO for 50o/o of IGP operations;the planned funding NOAO maintains two nighttime OIR sites: profile begins in 1997 and will rise to a steady- Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo. Kitt Peak is a state annual rate of $5'5 M by 2003, when reasonably dark site in an area with strong light Gemini South becomes fully operational. The pollution laws. It has good seeing need to identify the source of funds for characteristics, judging by the recent successes international Gemini operations is the main of the Michigan-Dartmouth-Massachusetts problem for NSF to solve, in order that U'S' Institute of Technology (MDM) 2.5-metet OIR astronomy can realize the scientific yield telescope and the WIYN telescope' Cerro of its investment in the two telescopes. Tololo has superb seeing characteristics, The IGP is intended to support only the judging from the site survey work, although the management, operations, facilities, and current telescopes do not deliver optimal instrumentation development for the telescopes images. Cerro Tololo (see back cover) is a themselves. Each participating nation is superb photometric site and very dark. Work on expected to provide for the research needs ofits controlling light pollution has begun' own astronomers who will use the Gemini telescopes, including travel, data archiving and distribution, and limited support for instrumentation development' The NOAO is planning to redirect its internal resources to support these activities through the U'S. Gemini Project Office (USGPO) and has estimated that
A Strategl,t for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy Table 1. NOAO Telescopes and Oversubscription Rates Oversubscription Rate Nights Scheduled by Nights Telescope Focal Ratios Feb. 1994-Jan.1995 Feb. 1994-Jan. i995 (darVbright) Kitt Peak National Observatory 4-m 2.7l8lls 278 3.012.0 3.5-m WIYN 6.9 2.7-m 7.slls 286 2.5/2.0 1.3-m l5 260 1.5 0.9-m 7 .5/t3.5 274 2.011.9 0.9-m Coudé Feed 31 258 1.2 0.6/0.9-m Schmidt 3.5 131 1.9 Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory 4-m 2.718/15 298 2.6/2.7 1.5-m 7.slt3.s/30 332 L412.4 1.0-m l0 223 0.9/2.1 0.9-m l3.5 307 t.6/t.0 0.6/0.9-m Schmidt 3.5 191 1.3 Table I lists the NOAO telescopes. At device (CCD) and at CTIO to less than that with both sites, the premier 4-meter telescopes are a1024 x 7024 CCD). At CTIO the 1.0-meter moderately wide-field (45 arc minutes) Ritchey- telescope is shared with Yale University and the Chrétien reflectors. At Kitt Peak, an f/I5 0.6-meter telescope (dedicated to single-channel secondary is used to optimize infrared photometry) is shared with Lowell Observatory. capabilities and achieve commonality with the All the telescopes with apertures of 1 meter or 2.7- and 1.3-meter telescopes. The new less have very restricted instrumentation to 3.5-meter WIYN telescope on Kitt Peak will provide for efficient operation. provide wide fields, up to 1 degree for the KPNO hosts approximately 600 multiobject spectrometry port and 0.5 degree for astronomer-visits per year for use of its the WIYN port. The WIYN telescope has telescopes and CTIO approximately 200 per already delivered images at the 0.4" level. The year. Table 1 lists the scheduling and Schmidt telescopes at KPNO and Cerro Tololo oversubscription rates (nights requested/nights Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) are scheduled) in 1994 for all NOAO telescopes. It university-owned, with the observing time shows that in 1994 the smaller (2.1 m or less) shared. They are both capable ofS-degree telescopes at KPNO provided some 1200 fields (but limited at the moment to 1 degree at observer-nights, or approximately 43%o of all KPNO with a 2048 x 2048 charge-coupled NOAO observing time.
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy Helmut Abt's studies* on the cost- Oscillation Network Group (GONG). Figure 4b effectiveness oftelescopes, the research done at shows the distribution that results when the NOAO, and institutional productivities all show Tucson central services and AURA management that NOAO has been scientifically productive. are prorated among the various functions they Moreover, many major astronomical discoveries support, according to estimates provided by have been made with NOAO telescopes. A few NOAO. In Figure 4b, the support of the image of the many examples include the Infrared reduction and analysis facility (IRAF) project, Tully-Fisher relationship, the Bootes Void, the the USGPO, and the WIYN telescope are shown Lyman alpha forest, the first gravitational lens, separately. The chart shows that of the $27.1 M and the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies. NOAO budget for 1993, $18.6 M was devoted The competitive access to NOAO to support of nighttime OIR astronomy and telescopes is crucial to the nation's science. The $8.5 M was devoted to solar astronomy. panel examined NSF grant funding over the three-year period from 1991 to 1993 to identifu GONG 2.6 the dollar amounts that have gone to researchers at institutions with guaranteed access to telescopes with apertures of 2 meters and larger, NSOTSP 2.2 and those at institutions lacking such facilities. AUR,A 0.5 Omitting astrometric programs and solar astronomy, 55% of the funding in OIR CENTRAL 4.3 observational research has gone to those with "perennial access." The remaining 45Yo has gone to those with "annual competitive access," and who presumably rely absolutely on NOAO Figure 4a. The 1993 NOAO funding distribution for the capability to carry out some, most, or (in $M;total is $27.1M). even all of their research. Since NOAO now includes only 20Yo of the telescopes with apertures of 2 meters or greater, the "annual" category i s extremely competitive scientifically, and NOAO has played a fundamental role in enabling these scientists and their graduate students to conduct their research. Figure 4 shows more detailed breakdowns of the NOAO budget in 1993, the most recent year for which such data are available. Figure 4b. The 1993 NOAO budget distribution Figure 4a represents funding explicitly with the Tucson central services and AURA designated for support of Kitt Peak National management pro-rated among the various functions Observatory ffPNO); Cerro Tololo Inter- they support, based on estimates provided by NOAO American Observatory (CTIO); the U.S. Gemini (in $M;total is $27,1M). Project Office (USGPO); general administrative, scientific, and technical support Currently, NOAO has a net staff of 455 at the NOAO Tucson headquarters ("central") full-time equivalents (FTEs), of which 224 are and the Association of Universities for Research located in the downtown Tucson headquarters, in Astronomy,Inc. (AURA), management fee 48 are located at Kitt Peak, 4l at Sacramento (vertically shaded); and support ofsolar Peak, and 142 at Cerro Tololo. Figure 5 shows astronomy (horizontally shaded) through the the organizational distribution of the NOAO National Solar Observatory at Sacramento Peak staff. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the (NSO/SP) and Tucson (NSO/T) and the Global CTIO staff according to function, and Figure 7
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy shows the same distribution of the KPNO and Since that time, most of the original signatories NOAO Tucson staff excluding NSO and have built their own Northern Hemisphere GONG. The net NOAO staffing devoted to telescopes and so are much less dependent on nighttime OIR astronomy has decreased by KPNO. In the meantime, departments of about6Yo from 1989 to 1994. astronomy have grown in many universities that were not original signatories to the AURA agreement and that today do not have access to 199¡f NOAO Staffing: Totel = 455 independent observatories. Approxim ately 5 0o/o of active OIR astronomers in the United States have access to independent observatories, while the remainingÃ}% must rely on NOAO for access to telescopes. CENTRAL 9,I 1994 KPNO + Tucson Stafflng: Totel = 220 I sctENrsrE 30 Figure 5. Distribution of NOAO staff by I ENGINÃERSAND organization. PRoGRAI,¡MERS ,12 E AoMtNtsrRATrvE 22 ø CLERIC,AL 36 El TEGHNrcrANs 63 M MAINIÃNANGE 37 1994 CTIO Stafilngi foþl = 142 Figure 7. Distribution of KPNO plus NOAO ! sctENTtsrs tõ Tucson staff according to function (excluding I ENG|NEERS aNo PROGRAMMERS II NSO and GONG). n ADM|NISTRAÃVE to à cLERtcAL 26 E fÃcHNtctaNs 33 Antarctic Programs M MAINIENANCE 4I The NSF also supports OIR astronomy research at the South Pole through a grant of $21 M for frve years from the Division of Polar Figure 6. Distribution of CTIO staff according to Programs to the Center for Astrophysical function. Research in Antarctica (CARA), a consortium involving the Center for Astrophysics, Boston To understand the diversity of OIR University, Carnegie Mellon University, the facilities in the United States, it is important to University of Chicago, and the University of consider the historical context in which the Colorado. This program supports SPIREX, a national observatories were established. In the 60-centimeter infrared-optimized telescope; early 1950s, the California astronomers had a ASTRO, a 1.7 -meter submillimeter telescope; monopoly on facilities at excellent sites, with and COBRA, a}-meter telescope to measure the the telescopes on Mt. Wilson, Mt. Palomar, and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave Mt. Harnilton. To enable scientists from other background radiation. institutions to carry out front-line research in OIR astronomy, KPNO was founded in 1957 by a consortium of universities that established AURA to manage the operations for the NSF. CTIO was founded by NSF and AURA in 1964 to provide access to Southern Hemisphere skies. t0
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy NASA The Independent Observatories The National Aeronautics and Space Table 2lists all current and planned Administration Solar System Exploration telescopes with aperture greater than2.0 meters Division supports the 3-meter Infrared that will be available to U.S. astronomers, Telescope Facility (IRTF) on Mauna Kea and including both the "national" telescopes has made a commitment to support part of the operated by NOAO and NASA and those construction of the infrared-optimized Keck 2 telescopes operated by independent telescope and future operations of the Keck observatories (including the Smithsonian telescopes in return for 116 time on the two Astrophysical Observatory). It shows that the Keck telescopes. The NASA telescope time telescopes at the independent observatories will be available for national access through currently comprise roughly 8l% of the total peer-reviewed competition. Observations collecting area (and 76%o of the net diameter) of related to solar system studies and origins of such telescopes and that this situation will planetary systems will have priorþ prevail for the foreseeable future. Even more remarkable is the fact that the net area of all major U.S. telescopes will increase by a factor of 2.45 within a decade. The net capital investment (not including operating expenses) of private and state funds in telescopes that will be built by the independent observatories between 1985 and 2000 already exceeds $250 M and will certainly exceed $300 M before the end of the century. *Abt, H. 1990. Publ. Aston. Soc. Pacific 92,249 (1980);97, 1050 (1985); 105,794 (1993). ll
A Strategy þr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy Table 2. Current and Planned U.S. Telescopes with Aperture Greater Than 2.0 Meters Public Observatories Independent Observatories Telescope Aperture (m) Area (m'z) Telescope Aperture (m) Area (m2) CTJRRENT KPNO 4.0 12.6 Keck 1 10 78.5 CTIO 4.0 12.6 Palomar 5 19.6 0.4 x WIYN 3.5 9.6 MMT 4.5 1s.9 KPNO 2.1 3.5 ARC 3.5 9.6 0.9 x IRTF 3.0 7.1 0.6 x WIYN 3.5 9.6 Lick J 7.1 Texas 2.7 5.7 Dupont 2.5 4.9 MDM 2.5 4.9 WIRO 2.4 4.5 Steward 2.3 4.2 Hawaii 2.2 3.8 Texas 2.1 3.5 SUBTOTAL* 14.2 38.9 44.8 167.8 24% t9% 76% 81% PLAIINED 0.45 x Gemini N 0.45 x 8 50.3 0,9 x Keck 2 10 78.5 0.45 x Gemini S 0.45 x 8 50.3 0.5 x LBT 2x8.5 tr3.4 l/3 x Keck 1 1/3 x 10 78.5 0.5 x F{ET -8 35.2 Magellan I 6.5 3.J.2 Magellan II 6.5 33.2 MMT upgrade 6.5 33.2 SDSS 2.5 4.9 SUBTOTAL* 10.5 71.4 42.8 248.7 20% 22% 80% 78% TOTAL* 24.7 I 10.3 83.0 400.7 23% 22% 77% 78% *The actual telescope apertures or areas are listed, but these values are multiplied by the fractions of time allocated to U,S. astronomers to calculate the subtotals and totals. The sums in the independent observatories column do not include the University of Hawaii shares of international telescopes on Mauna Kea, such as Gemini North, the CFHT, the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope, and the Subaru Telescope. The MMT upgrade replaces the MMT, whose contribution has been subtracted from the total. t2
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy Key to Table 2: ARC: Located at Apache Point Observatory, New Mexico, and operated by the Astrophysics Research Corporation, a consortium of the University of Chicago, New Mexico State University, Princeton University, the University of Washington, and Washington State University. CFHT: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. Dupont: Located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile, and operated by the Carnegie Observatories. Gemini N: (See Plate 1.) Located on Mauna Kea and operated by the IGP. Time allocation: U.S. national access-4 5Yo; international partners---4 5% ; Univers ity of Hawaii- I 0%. Gemini S: Located on Cerro Pachon, Chile, and operated by the IGP. Hawaii: The Universþ of Hawaii Telescope. HET: Hobby-Eberly Telescope, located at MacDonald Observatory, Texas; a collaboration befween the University of Texas, Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, the University of Munich, and the Universþ of Göttingen. IRTF: The Infrared Telescope Facility located on Mauna Kea and operated by NASA Planetary Sciences Division. Keck l: (See Plate 2.)Locatedon Mauna Kea and operated by CARA, a consortium of the California Institute of Technology and the Universþ of California system. Keck 2: Twin of the Keck I telescope under construction on Mauna Kea. Funded partially by NASA Planetary Sciences Division, which will provide national access to l/6 of the telescope time of both Keck I and Keck 2. The remaining time will be under the control of the California Institute of Technology and the University of California system. LBT: Large Binocular Telescope, located on Mt. Graham, Arizona; a collaboration between the Steward Observatory, University of Arizona; Arcetri Observatory, Florence, Italy; and Research Corporation, a U.S. foundation for the advancement ofscience. Lick: Shane Telescope, located on Mt. Hamilton, California, and operated by the Lick Observatory, University of California. Magellan I: Located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile; a collaboration between the Carnegie Observatories and the University of Arizona. Magellan II: Twin to Magellan I telescope. MDM: Located on Kitt Peak and operated by the University of Michigan, Dartmouth University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MMT: Multiple Mirror Telescope, located on Mt. Hopkins, Arizona, and operated jointly by the University of Arizona and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. To be upgraded to a single-mirror telescope and renamed the Monolithic Minor Telescope. Palomar: Located on Mt. Palomar, California, and operated by the Califomia Institute of Technology in partnership with the Carnegie Observatories and Cornell University' SDSS: Sloan Digital Sky Survey, located at Apache Point Observatory, New Mexico, and operated by a consortium including the University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, Johns Hopkins University, Princeton University, the University of Washington, the U.S. Naval Observatory, and a number of astronomical institutions in Japan. Steward: Located on Kitt Peak and operated by the Steward Observatory, University of Arizona. Texas: Operated by MacDonald Observatory, University of Texas. WIRO: Wyoming Infrared Observatory, operated by the University of Wyoming' WIYN: Located on Kitt Peak and operated jointly by the University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, Yale University, and NOAO. Forty percent of the observing time is available for national access via NOAO, and 600lo remains in the control of the participating universities. 13
A Strategyfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy ilr. OPPORTUNITIES IN OIR university setting offers the additional ASTRONOMY advantage of involving undergraduate and graduate students, and therefore training scientists and engineers who become familiar The Allure of Astronomy with essential enabling technologies. Similar Astronomy occupies a special place in the comments could be made about the high- research portfolio of this country. performance computing increasingly necessary Understanding the stars and the cosmos is one for data reduction, simulation of complex of the oldest and noblest intellectual goals of phenomena like galaxy formation and humanity. The compelling justification for supernovae explosions, and archiving. astronomy research is immediately clear and its results, in particular the beautiful images The Promise of New Technologies obtained in the optical and infrared, excite the Before the advent of radio astronomy in the imagination of the public atlarge, as witnessed 1940s, most of the great discoveries in by the wide coverage of astronomy research in astronomy were made with large reflecting the media. Starting in the first years of primary telescopes in which the light was detected by school, astronomy offers numerous photographic film. A new technological opportunities to improve the scientific literacy revolution in OIR astronomy began in the of our population, and many astronomers are 1970s, when astronomers started to replace becoming actively involved in K-12 education. photographic film with electronic detectors such From planetarium shows to the use of as CCDs, effectively increasing the light- computers in the classroom, exciting approaches gathering power of the telescopes by factors of are being tried. Moreover, for many 10 to 30. This revolution continues today, with undergraduates ofour universities, the only major advances arising from: contact with modern science is established through an introductory course in astronomy. The recent increase in the number of o Active control of the shapes of telescope astronomers may be less a consequence of mirrors. With this technology, it is possible to build large telescopes with lightweight federal funding than the response by universities thin or segmented primary mirrors of short to student demand for these highly popular focal length. Greatly reduced costs result courses. from much lighter support structures and Although astronomy represents the essence smaller domes. The Keck 1 (Plate 2) and of basic research, it is also intimately engaged in the applied field of instrumentation in its WIYN telescopes have demonstrated that this technology can provide image quality increasingly closer interaction with industry. beffer than that provided by telescopes with Astronomy's research activities depend on the massive solid mirrors. development of sophisticated sensors, and the availability of low-noise and large-format CCDs and infrared arrays has produced in the last o New designs for telescope mounts and instrument platforms. New-technology decade a revolution in our observing power. telescopes permit the simultaneous Adaptive optics and interferometric methods installation of several major instruments. promise to have the same effect in the coming They can be used at much higher efficiency years. Inversely, the demanding needs of than older telescopes because astronomers astronomy and the efforts of brilliant can switch from one instrument to another instrumentalists contribute to advancing the in minutes instead of hours or days, carrying state of the art in technologies applicable to out complex observational programs and many other scientific fields and to the optimizing the instrument choice to commercial, medical, and defense sectors. The changing observing conditions. current trend of instrument development in a l4
Plate l Scale model of the Gemini North telescope. The 8- meter-diameter primary mirror is relatively thin and flexible. Deformations are removed by some 120 computer-controlled actuators on the mirror mount to give the sharpest possible image. The secondary mirror is supported by a truss structure designed to mini- mize the infrared radiation that enters the telescope. The open design of the dome minimizes image degradation due to turbu- lence in the local airflow. (Cour- tesy of National Optical Astronomy Observatories.) Plate 2. The world's largest telescope: the lO-meter-diameter mirror of the V/. M. Keck Tele- scope, atop Hawaii's dormant Mauna Kea volcano, was com- pleted April 14, T992. The positions ofits 36 hexagonal glass segments are aligned to a small fraction of the wavelength of light by computer-controlled actuators. A twin telescope, Keck 2, to be located nearby, is currently under construction and will be completed in 1996. The Keck telescopes are the results ofa scientific partner- ship between the California Institute of Technology and the Universþ of California. (Courtesy of Roger Ressmeyer, Starlight Photo Agency.)
,t* J I a a t .a a O .a ar' i $-t., ;. lltr a. o -a ¡o I . . ..t.q. "t a al' o tr a I ,. .t I .t fr a a' plate 3. The deep extragalactic sky. Large ground-based telescopes equipped with state-of-the-art wide-field CCD imagers are uniquely capable of probing the distant universe. For example, more than 10,000 gaiaxies can be detected in this image, taken with such a camera on the 4-meter Mayall telescope on Kitt Peak National Observa- tory. Fewer than 100 of them would be detectable in a similar image taken with photographic film, the best avail- able technology for wide-field imaging in 1980. The faint blue arcs circling a massive cluster of reddish-yellow galaxies are actually much more distant blue galaxies elongated by gravitational lensing as their light passes through this cluster (4be112218) 2 biltion light-years distant. These distorted background images can provide a map of the mass of the foreground cluster, most of which is otherwise invisible dark matter. (Courtesy of Gary Bernstein, University of Michigan, and J. Anthony Tyson, AT&T Bell Laboratories.)
ptate 4. Infrared array images of the Orion Nebula, a nearby region of active star formation. Most of the stars seen in this image are invisible at optical wavelengths as a result of obscuration by interstellar dust. The reddest objects are highly obscured newly forming stars. The insets illustrate the dramatic advance in infrared array detector technõlogy. The inset at the upper right represents an array of 58 X 62 pixels, the best available in 1990. The middle inset represents an array of 256 X 256 pixels, the present technology. The larger square panels on the left are montages, each constructed from 16 such images. By 1996, such images will be obtained in a single observation with arrays of 1024 X 1024 pixels currently under development. To produce a comparable image in 1990 would have required roughly 300 times as much telescope time. (Courtesy of National Optical Astronomy Observatories')
Plate 5. (Top) The Hydra multif,rber spechograph mounted on the 4-meter Mayall telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory. Each of 97 optical fibers can be placed by computer control to capture and analyze the light from a different part of the tele- scope image. (Bottom) The spectra of 97 galaxies obtained simultaneously by the Hydra spectrograph. Each horizontal line is the spectrum of light from a different galaxy. The bracket at the bottom indicates the wavelength range where pairs of emission lines from hydrogen and sulfur atoms in galaxies are evident in many spectra. The lines can be recog- nized easily because they do not line up vertically at constant wavelength, owing to the motions of the galaxies. (Most of the emission lines in the spectra actually come from the Earth's airglow.) By analyzing these wavelength shift s, astronomers can measure the mass of dark matter between the galaxies. (Courtesy of National Optical Astronomy Observatories.) ptate 6. Satum with and without adaptive optics. (Left panel) The image is blurred by atmospheric turbulence to a resolution of approximately 1.5 arc seconds. (Right panel) The image resolution has improved to approximately 0.2 arc seconds with an adaptive optics system. A laser system measures the atmospheric image distortion and24l gaps in the actuators deform a mirror at arale of 100 times per second to remove this distortion. Details, such as the rings, the band structure of Saturn's atmosphere, and the satellite Titan, are now clearly visible. (Courtesy of Robert Q. Fugate, Starfire Optical Range, U'S' Air Force Phillips Laboratory.)
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy Improved design and thermol control of o Adaptive optics. Technology to correct for telescope domes. This technology (see rapidly changing image distortion due to Plate 1) can result in improvements of atmospheric turbulence, pioneered by the image quality and spectrometer throughput Department of Defense, is now becoming by factors of two or more. available to astronomers. A factor-of-two reduction in the full width at half maximum Large-format blue-sensitive optical CCD (FWHM) of the resolution of the image aruays. Such arrays (Plate 3) can make full implies a factor-of-four increase in peak use of the focalplane of moderate flux and a factor-of-eight improvement in telescopes designed for wide-field imaging accuracy of moment analysis, image and spectrometry, such as the 0.6-meter distortion analysis, and morphological Burrell Schmidt telescope and the 2S-meter classification. Already, the Canada-France- Sloan Digital Sky Survey telescope at Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) has demonstrated Apache Point Observatory. Current plans the ability of an adaptive tip-tilt system to for instruments on the Keck telescopes reduce the seeing FWHM from 0.8" to 0.4". include arrays of 8,000 x 8,000 pixels. More sophisticated technologies to correct wavefront distortion more completely are Lar ge -format infrared arrays. This currently under development (Plate 6). development is the greatest recent advance They have the potential of providing image in instrument technology for OIR quality that can now be obtained only by far astronomy. High-quantum-efficiency, more costly telescopes in space. very-low-noise, low-dark-current arrays of upto 1024 x 1024 pixels have increased the o Interlerometry. The technology to combine ability of telescopes to obtain infrared in phase the light from separated telescopes, images and spectra by factors of thousands a standard technique for radio astronomy, compared to what was possible five years opens the possibility of observing sources ago (Plate 4). with angular resolution hundreds or thousands of times sharper than currently Multiobject spectrometry. New feasible from telescopes on the ground or in spectrometers (Plate 5) equipped with space. As discussed in the AASC report, multiple fiber-optic feeds or multiple slits such technology would enable astronomers can now take spectra ofhundreds ofobjects to address exciting problems cunently at once rather than one at a time. beyond reach. Great challenges remain to bring the technology to fruition. C omput er s and informat i on tec hn o I o gt. Advances in these areas enable astronomers Scientific Challenges to analyze efficiently and develop The AASC report identifìed the meaningful models for the vast flood of data outstanding scientific opportunities in produced by the new instruments on OIR astronomy and astrophysics for the 1990s and telescopes. They also permit greater laid out a prioritized strategy for realizing those versatility and accuracy in telescope control opportunities. The AASC strategy for OIR and the ability to assess and analyze data in astronomy is part of a larger strategy f'or real time. Thanks to high-speed research in astronomy and astrophysics that telecommunications networks, it is now includes facilities on the ground and in space. becoming possible for astronomers to The current revolution in our understanding of operate telescopes located thousands of the cosmos comes largely from our new-found miles away with computer terminals in their ability to observe the sky at every wavelength of home offices. the electromagnetic spectrum, ranging from 15
A Strøtegyfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy radio to gamma rays. In this strategy, OIR jets around these stars, and the spectra will astronomy plays a central role. Almost every tell us about the gas temperatures, new astronomical source, whether discovered by velocities, and magnetism that control the radio telescopes on the ground or by infrared, star formation dynamics. ultraviolet, X-ray, or gamma-ray telescopes in space, must be observed by ground-based OIR Ilhat is the origin of the heavy elements in telescopes to understand its physical nature and the universe? Astronomers believe that the significance. heavy elements are formed as a result of Conversely, observations with ground- nuclear reactions in stars, particularly in based OIR telescopes are essential for the their final convulsions as novae and efficient use of far more costly telescopes in supernovae. Surveys with2- to 4-meter space. For example, the Hubble Space telescopes will find many more of these Telescope (HST) has a very nanow field of events, and large telescopes will obtain view and can observe only a tiny fraction ofthe detailed spectra, particularly at infrared sky. We can realize the full benefits of the wavelengths where newly formed elements HST's superior image quality and unique are most apparent, to confirm and enrich ultraviolet spectroscopic capability only if we this theory. With powerful new identiff its targets on the basis of extensive spectrometers, astronomers will be able to studies with ground-based OIR telescopes. understand better how the products of Moreover, the HST will image distant sources supernova nucleosynthesis are dispersed so faint that their spectra can be measured only and built up in stars, galaxies, and by ground-based OIR telescopes offar greater interstellar and intergalactic gas. aperture. The same considerations apply to other NASA programs under development, such How many stars have planetary systems? as the NICMOS infrared instrument on HST, the With infrared telescopes, astronomers will Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) and be able to detect and image disks of dust the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared particles around stars from which planetary Astronomy (SOFIA) infrared telescopes, and the systems are believed to form. Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) X-ray telescope. Even ignoring the scientific How do galaxies form and evolve? With discoveries enabled by OIR telescopes alone, large optical and infrared telescopes, NSF's $40 M annual expenditure to support astronomers will be able to find newly ground-based OIR astronomy can be justified forming galaxies at high redshifts and learn easily on the basis ofthe enhanced scientific about their dominant physical processes. yield from NASA's $800 M annual funding of space astrophysics. ll/hat powers the central engines of active The AASC report pointed out that major galaxies and quasars? Are they opportunities to address fundamental cosmic supermassive black holes? Do many other questions will be enabled by new technologies galaxies, including the Milky Way, also and instrumentation for ground-based OIR contain quiescent black holes? If so, what telescopes. For example: are the environmental conditions that determine the rich variety of phenomena o How do stars form? Telescopes equipped associated with quasars and galactic nuclei? with modern infrared instruments will be To answer these questions, astronomers able to observe newly forming stars that are need to observe many galactic nuclei with enshrouded in dust clouds from which OIR telescopes having high angular optical light cannot emerge. The images resolution, broad spectral range, and will reveal the morphology of the disks and polarimetric capability. The coordination of t6
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy such observations with observations with newspapers, magazine covers, and television radio, ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma-ray news broadcasts. This remarkable event, the telescopes is also necessary. likes of which may not recur for millennia, will tell us much about the nature of comets, the o How did the matter in the universe coalesce atmosphere of Jupiter, and the mechanisms for into clusters and superclusters of gølaxies, mass extinctions that occur on Earth on time separated by huge voids? With new- scales of tens of millions of years. technology 2- to 8-meter wide-field telescopes instrumented to measure spectra The Diversity of OIR Astronomy of hundreds of galaxies at a time, astronomers will be able to map the The sky contains literally billions of sources visible to OIR telescopes, representing distribution and velocities of many an amazing variety of phenomena. A partial list thousands of galaxies at moderate and high includes: redshifts, and to understand the forces and motions caused by the unseen "dark matter" a Planets, moons, comets, and asteroids; that appears to dominate the mass of the a Violent magnetic storms on nearby stars; universe. With infrared telescopes, they a Giant stars that are blowing their outer will be able to search deeply for faint red layers into interstellar space; stars that may contribute to the dark matter Violent stellar explosions in novae and in the halos of galaxies. supernovae; Interacting binaries containing the collapsed The AASC report recognized that the most remnants of dead stars; dramatic advances in these and other areas Vast clouds of magnetized interstellar gas would probably come from observations in the violently disturbed by stellar outflows and infrared band, where many of these phenomena explosions; are most easily observed. Great advances in our Newly forming stars surrounded by whirling ability to obtain infrared images and spectra are disks and shooting outjets ofgas; now being achieved with new large-scale array ¡ Galaxies with a vast variety of sizes, shapes, detectors with high quantum efficiency and very content, and dynamical behavior, which are low noise and dark current. Moreover, the observed to evolve as we look further back opportunity to obtain much sharper images from in distance and time; ground-based telescopes will be realized, first at ¡ Active galaxies and quasars containing infrared bands, for which the effects of compact sources of enormous power at their atmospheric distortion are most easily centers; compensated. For these reasons, as well as the ¡ Clouds of diffuse gas between the galaxies scientific promise of proposed NASA observable by their absorption of ultraviolet observatories such as SOFIA and SIRTF, the radiation from distant quasars; and AASC report called the 1990s "the decade of o An expanding universe in which the the infrared." galaxies are distributed on filaments Dramatic confirmation of the prescience of separating great voids and move under the that remark comes from the impact of comet influence of a far greater mass of invisible Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter. The effects are matter. most clearly evident in infrared images taken with telescopes equipped with adaptive optics Even using all the telescopes available, only a correctors and wide-format infrared anay tiny fraction ofthese sources can be observed in detectors that were not available five years ago. a human lifetime. A strategy to optimize Even as this report is written, these images are progress in understanding such a sky will not be appearing on the front pages of the world's T7
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy highly focused-it will require great diversity of greater number ofsources at once because they facilities, observing strategies, and ideas. have larger fields of view. Thus, a strategy for The commissioning of the two powerful efficient use of the large telescopes requires Gemini telescopes in 2000 and 2003 will open smaller telescopes to select the most promising new opportunities for research by the U.S. targets from the myriad of sources. Moreover, astronomical community. The 8-meter Gemini there are many projects of great scientific merit, North telescope on Mauna Kea was the AASC such as redshift surveys and mapping of report's highest-priority recommendation for a extended sources, that can be done more ground-based facility. It will be optimized for efficiently with smaller telescopes. diffraction- limited operation at infrared In addition to large and moderate general- wavelengths and will be a unique facility using purpose telescopes, an effic ient infrastructure revolutionary infrared array detectors to make for OIR astronomy will include telescopes the high-spatial- and high-time-resolution designed for special purposes. Some important observations needed to study phenomena programs can be accomplished at great savings ranging from protoplanetary disks around young in telescope construction and operation by nearby stars to the most distant galaxies in the sacrificing versatility. For example, the Hobby- early universe. The 8-meter Gemini South Eberly Telescope GIET; see Table 2)has a telescope, located in Chile (see back cover), will lO-meter fixed spherical primary mirror and a provide U.S. astronomers with a vital window to movable secondary mirror-the optical the Magellanic clouds, the center of the Milky equivalent of the Arecibo radio telescope. By Way, and other southern sky objects. sacrificing pointing and steering capability, the The estimated annual cost for the IGP to HET can measure spectra of faint objects at a operate the two Gemini telescopes will be about small fraction of the cost of doing so with a $11 M, of which the United States is obliged to general-purpose telescope of comparable provide half. In addition, NOAO estimates an effective aperture (6 to 8 meters). Other very annual cost of$2.5 M to support access by the important projects, such as the Two Micron All U.S. community to the Gemini telescopes, Sky Survey (2MASS) of millions of infrared including partial support for continued sources and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey instrument development, observer support, and (SDSS) to measure the colors and spectra of analysis and archiving of data. The net cost, millions of galaxies and quasars, can be carried $8 M, is well within the normal guidelines for out only with dedicated special-purpose the operation of any major astronomical facility, telescopes. which is about 70o/o per year of the construction An efficient strategy for OIR astronomy costs. will also accommodate a diversity of observing Modern OIR astronomy involves a mix of modes. Programs to develop new instrument telescope sizes and types. The largest and most technology will require substantial amounts of expensive telescopes, such as the 8-meter dedicated telescope time. Some observations, Gemini telescopes (see Plate 1) and the which push the performance limits of telescopes 1O-meter Keck telescopes (see Plate 2), will and instruments, can be carried out successfully have unique power to record images and spectra only by astronomers intimately familiar with the of the faintest and most distant sources in the facilities. Uniform surveys of large numbers of sky. But it would be extremely wasteftll to use sources rnay require tens or hundreds ofnights these great telescopes to observe systems that of telescope time but can be carried out can be observed equally well, and often far according to an established routine. Some such more efficiently, by smaller telescopes. For programs may now be accomplished most example, these great telescopes have relatively efficiently by remote observing. At the other narrow fîelds of view, whereas modern 2-to extreme, a nsw discovery at radio or X-ray 4-meter-class telescopes can observe a far wavelengths may require a snapshot taking only 18
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy a few minutes of telescope time or, as is hundreds of nights of telescope time. The frequently the case, it may lead to an extensive independent observatories also make a major campaign for coordinated ground- and space- contribution to the research of astronomers not based OIR observations. Much important affiliated with their own institutions, through science can be achieved most efficiently by informal collaborations, guest observer creating alarge uniform data set and analyzing programs, and the data that they disseminate to the results later, as was the case with the the community. Infrared Astronomy Satellite and will likely be NOAO adds a vital dimension to OIR so for the SDSS. These various observing astronomy (and solar astronomy) in the United modes will complement, but not replace, the States. Since KPNO began operations in 1960, traditional observing run of a few nights, which NOAO has provided world-class telescopes, will still be needed for experienced astronomers particularly the 4-meter telescopes at KPNO and to carry out many kinds of programs and to CTIO. The CTIO has been especially important provide hands-on training of new astronomers. to U.S. astronomers because its facilities have Some observations might be done best if provided vital access to the southern sky (the scheduled in a queue and executed by staff only other major U.S.-owned Southern astronomers instead of the investigator, much as Hemisphere telescope is the 2.5-meter Dupont most observations with space observatories are telescope of the Las Campanas Observatory). carried out. Queue scheduling can be efficient NOAO enables many astronomers at because it permits (l) observations that require universities without major telescopes to carry rare conditions such as exceptional seeing; out frontier research on the basis ofopen peer- (2) greater efficiency in executing short reviewed competition. NOAO also provides observations; (3) greater flexibility in ensuring crucial observing options not otherwise that observations of highest scientific priority available to astronomers at independent are executed; (4) ease of scheduling time- observatories. Likewise, NOAO provides vital critical observations such as targets of access to OIR telescopes for radio and space opportunity and synoptic studies; and astronomers. (5) optimal scheduling of observations to ensure The NOAO includes the National Solar observations at minimum air mass and correct Observatories (NSO), which provide the U.S. lunar phase. solar physics community with access to Most of the major OIR telescopes in the observing capabilities not available elsewhere in United States are located at independent the United States. These include the infrared observatories, owned and managed by state and capabilities of NSO facilities on Kitt Peak and private institutions (see Section II). This the high-angular-resolution facilities in the situation, in which the majority of the capital optical at Sacramento Peak. assets were provided by private and state Recently, NOAO has entered into a number sources, is a unique and enormous asset to U.S. of successful partnerships with university physical science. Because these independent instrument groups and independent observatories operate more than two-thirds of observatories, such as the deployment at CTIO the major U.S. telescopes and are used primarily of the OSIRIS infrared spectrometer that was by about half of the OIR astronomers in the developed by Ohio State University, and the lJnited States (Section II), they can support construction and joint operation at KPNO of the scientific programs of great merit that are WIYN telescope, a partnership of the University beyond the resources of the NOAO. In of Wisconsin, Indiana University, Yale particular, the independent observatories can University, and NOAO. NOAO has exerted devote greater fractions of their telescope time leadership in some areas of instrumentation to testing of innovative instrumentation and to development. Outstanding recent examples are extensive observing projects requiring tens or the Hydra multifiber spectrograph (see Plate 5) t9
A Strategyfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy and the deployment of large-format optical and optimum infrastructure. The principles are as infrared detector arays. NOAO has acted as a follows: national resource for instrumentalists by providing advice and technical information o It is wastefulto maintain a full complement freely. NOAO has also developed and of instruments on every telescope. Losses supported standards for data archiving and accrue from leaving valuable instruments on analysis, including the IRAF data-reduction the shelf most of the time and from the software that is used by astronomers worldwide. necessity to change instruments. Significant OIR astronomy in the United States gains savings can be realized by supporting fewer strength not only from the infrastructure of the instruments on each telescope. independent observatories and the NOAO, but also from a growing variety of international o If telescopes become more specialized, the collaborations. The State of Hawaii has the diversity of observing options required for good luck to have, on Mauna Kea, the best site OIR astronomy can be maintained by in the world for many kinds of OIR astronomy arrangements facilitating access by (see front cover); as a result, the University of astronomers to a variety of specialized Hawaii is a partner in the operations of several telescopes at independent and national international telescopes, notably the 3 '6-meter observatories. Various successful examples CFHT, the 3.8-meter United Kingdom Infrared already exist of such arrangements, which Telescope, and the 8-meter Japanese Subaru are often informal. They include bartering Telescope, currently under construction. of telescope time, exchange of telescope International cooperation will become a much time for instruments, and service observing. greater part of the U.S. OIR astronomy Rapidly developing technology for remote infrastructure with the completion of the two observing will make it easier to provide 8-meter telescopes of the international Gemini such access. project, a collaboration between the United States (50% share), the United Kingdom (25%), o A broad distribution function of the length Canada (15%), Chile (5%), Brazil (2.5Yo), and of observing runs will probably result in the Argentina (2.5%). In addition, a number of greatest scientific yield. Long-term independent observatories have undertaken to projects, by experienced observers with one build major OIR telescopes in partnership with or two instruments, can be of great scientific other countries, notably the Large Binocular merit and can be carried out at the lowest Telescope (LBT), the HET, and the SDSS (see cost per night. Many significant "The Independent Observatories" in Section II). observations, particularly those on the largest telescopes, will require less than a Principles for Maximizing ScientifÃc Yield night and might be accomplished most efficiently by queue scheduling and remote Given the diversity of scientific challenges or service observing. for OIR astronomy, it is no easy task to suggest mechanisms to optimize the productivity of the ¡ Cooperation at every level should be complex infrastructure that is required to meet encouraged. Already evident are excellent them. Indeed, this panel cannot dictate how this examples of cooperation between NOAO infrastructure will develop or foresee the and various universities in building and scientific and technical problems and operating telescopes (e.g., the WIYN opportunities that will arise' The best that it can telescope), in the deployment of instruments do is to identiff some general principles to (e.g., the Ohio State University OSIRIS increase the scientific yield of the enterprise, infrared spectrometer and the Rutgers and suggest mechanisms for making ongoing University Fabry-Perot camera at CTIO), in decisions that are likely to lead to a more 20
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy the development of optical and infrared well served by the competitive access to NOAO detector arrays, and in software facilities, and that must continue. development for instrument and telescope (Here, and throughout this report, the panel control as well as data analysis. Ongoing refers to NOAO's priorities and strategy for efforts to establish and maintain standards ground-based nighttime OIR astronomy. It does for user-telescope-instrument interfaces will not discuss priorities for solar astronomy.) encourage and facilitate such cooperation. Approximately half of the nation's active research astronomers have access to major r Excellent opportunities will likely arise for telescopes at independent observatories, and international cooperation beyond the approximately half are affiliated with various agreements already mentioned to institutions that lack such facilities. Many of build new telescopes. For example, the the former group count on NOAO to provide Anglo-Australian Telescope and the CTIO observing options not available at their own are already discussing arrangements to observatories. For these astronomers, CTIO is barter telescope time. In the future, the especially valuable. The latter group includes Keck, Gemini, and European Southern many astronomers actively engaged in research Observatories may find that barter at other wavelength bands (e.g,, radio arrangements may reduce the need to build astronomy, space astronomy). similar instruments at each observatory. Why has NOAO been a success? NOAO has (l) built major telescopes in good sites, r Mechanisms for such cooperation will be (2) equipped them with good instruments, and most effective if the terms can be arranged (3) provided excellent service to astronomers. by the working scientists and can evolve NOAO has built up teams of skilled engineers with changing circumstances. and scientists in the areas ofoptical and infrared detectors, controllers, cryogenics, optical fibers, An effective way to implement increased and data analysis software. The smaller collaboration and cooperation and exchange of telescopes have been equipped, not with a fleet ideas would arise from increased national access of instruments, but with dedicated-purpose ones, to private observatories. A mechanism for particularly CCD imagers. These well- facilitating such access is described in this instrumented small telescopes have played a report. Increased cooperation would not only major role in the successful science conducted foster new science programs, but would also by NOAO users. provide enhanced opportunities for graduate Despite these successes, NOAO has lagged student training. in the construction ofnew telescopes. The 3.S-meter WIYN telescope is the first new facility in two decades. In the past, NOAO has IV. NOAO IN THE GEMINI ERA tried to satisfu the entire user community with an extremely broad mix of user services and Introduction instrumentation on most of its telescopes. This effort has sapped resources that would have NOAO's mission is to provide national been better focused on the construction of more access to the sky by means of excellent optical technically advanced facilities. and infrared observational faciiities on NOAO provides a level of service not outstanding sites in both hemispheres. Use of found at the independent observatories. A the facilities is determined by open peer- substantial share of NSF dollars going toward reviewed competition among the best scientific NOAO is appropriate since it is the only ideas from the entire astronomical community. observatory open to all astronomers. The The multiwavelength community has been very question of balance between NOAO and the 2t
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy independent observatories is one that has been components of the present NOAO would by raised repeatedly and that is addressed below' necessity vanish. Renewal of facilities must In addition to providing national access to lead to a decrease of long-term operating costs telescopes, NOAO aims to provide leadership in so that more science can be supported within a the development and operations of major new fixed budget, telescopes, in developing instrumentation and This realignment will be painful, for a software, and in scientific research. NOAO has different mix of talents and projects will be had substantial success in each ofthese areas. needed. Planning such a realignment must However, the fact remains that NOAO does not include (1) rethinking the role of the national now and will not be able to maintain pre- observatory and (2) restructuring to optimize the eminence in all aspects of OIR astronomy' To effectiveness ofthat new role. The panel achieve leadership in a constrained budget believes that reorganization will be required and environment, NOAO will have to make hard that elements of that reorganization might choices in distributing its resources. The panel include the following: suggests the following guiding principle: NOAO should concentrate its resources in r Enabling scientific programs that require those areas where it has the best chances to both Gemini and smaller telescopes, and assert scientific leadership. It follows that that need to be conducted in either or both NOAO will not be able to maintain preeminence hemispheres. All stages of a project would in all aspects of OIR astronomy, nor should it be included, from possible pre-Gemini try to do so. surveys to follow-uP Post-Gemini observations. The instrumentation on the The Gemini Era smaller CTIO and KPNO telescopes and the national time allocation committee The twin 8-meter Gemini telescopes are procedures may require modifications' being built to permit the national scientific community competitive access to two of the ¡ As NOAO focuses its attention on fewer world's largest telescopes in two of the world's tasks of high priority, it should evolve to a best sites. NOAO should play the key role in leaner and more focused organization, with determining how the United States interacts fewer employees and a different mix than at with the Gemini telescopes, instrumentation present, a smaller staff in Tucson, and a choices, and scientific support of the two smaller core of tenured scientists. telescopes. Gemini's science, instrumentation, and operations must be o More open two-way links with the NOAO's highest Priorities. community-from contributed software and It will be a challenge for NOAO hardware to active participation in all management to realign its observatories to phases of the observatory-would help accommodate the needs of the astronomy spread the burden and the responsibility. community in the Gemini era' These needs include community access to state-of-the-art o New instruments might often be developed instruments and high-performance 2- to 4-meter through competitive selection among OIR telescopes, as well as the Gemini NOAO itself and other optimal groups or telescopes. This renewal of the NOAO suppliers, who would then collaborate infrastructure is crucial to the future of U'S' closely with NOAO. A mechanism to astronomy and was the highestpriority stimulate this process could be an annual recommendation of the AASC report. However, U.S. workshop for astronomical to ensure effective operations and access by a instrumentation. wide community to these new facilities during a period of flat or declining budgets, major 22
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy A reduced selection of instruments, with most efficiently through queue observing and, more instruments permanently installed on possibly, by remote observing. Therefore, the each telescope, should require fewer USGPO must be prepared to support hardware personnel for operations and maintenance and software interfaces for U.S. users to and result in lower costs. wideband telecommunication links with Gemini North and South. As is the case with software Some observational programs would be development for data analysis (see the done more efficiently by remote, queue, and subsection "Instrumentation" below), the service observing than by hands-on USGPO effort to develop remote observing operation of the telescopes. capability should be part ofa national effort, taking maximum advantage of expertise outside NOAO site directors should have as much of NOAO. authority as possible to operate their sites in According to current estimates, the IGP a scientifically cost-effective manner. will require approximately $11 M per year to operate and manage its telescopes, including Older telescopes of all sizes that are $3 M per year for instruments and major expensive and/or inefficient to operate telescope upgrades. The NSF will therefore be should be retired. obliged to pay approximately $5.5 M per year to the IGP for its 500/o share. The panel examined The Gemini Project these costs and has found them reasonable. They do not, however, include the costs for To save costs, the international Gemini NOAO to support the U.S. interface to the IGP, project intends to utilize as much of the existing as described above. NOAO estimates that the CTIO infrastructure as possible for Gemini latter activities will cost approximately $2.5 M South and as much of the Joint Astronomy per year and plans to absorb those costs by Center (JAC) infrastructure in Hilo as possible reallocating resources within its present budget. for Gemini North. The current plan is for IGP The panel endorses this plan. However, as to buy services, in cash, from CTIO and JAC. discussed below, NOAO cannot absorb the NOAO will have a minimal presence on Hawaii, additional $5.5 M per year charge without at least in the initial stages of Gemini making severe cutbacks in its present operations. operations, including a major downsizing of the While IGP has the responsibility to build, Tucson operations, and probably the closing or operate, maintain, and upgrade the Gemini privatizing of most of its older telescopes on telescopes and their instruments, it will not KPNO. support Gemini science. Each participating nation is expected to provide the scientific, Other Telescopes technical, and administrative infrastructure required for its astronomers to use the After the direct support of the Gemini telescopes. For the United States, that role must telescopes, the second priority of NOAO must be filled by the U.S. Gemini Project Office be the support of moderate (2' to 4-meter-class) (USGPO), a division of NOAO located at telescopes with the best possible capabilities' Tucson. For U.S. users of Gemini, the USGPO NOAO needs a variety of such telescopes to will manage the national time allocation (1) support the Gemini scientific programs and committee and telescope scheduling and will instrument development, (2) provide other provide scientific support to astronomers, unique national capabilities, and (3) support the including advice concerning instruments, data, scientific programs of the best researchers and observing requirements, and access to archives. students throughout the nation. Items (2) and The panel anticipates that a substantial (3) are chief among NOAO's current activities, fraction of Gemini science may be carried out 23
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy and the need to support them will not diminish Gemini, is the only access to the Southern with the coming of Gemini. Hemisphere skies for the vast majority of U.S. The new-technology 3.5-meter WIYN astronomers, and its smaller telescopes should telescope at KPNO is an excellent example of a be kept open until they can be replaced in a modest-class telescope. WIYN has already cost-effective manner, As discussed above, an achieved an image quality better than 0.5". enorrnous amount of valuable science can, and It will complement GeminiNorth in the should, be done on moderate-size telescopes. intermediate field of view, high-resolution Closing the smaller telescopes on CTIO, imaging regime; it will provide wide-field particularly the 1.5-meter and the Schmidt rnultiobj ect spectroscopic capabilities; and it telescopes, should be done only as a last resort. will provide access to the near ultraviolet (UV). In order for CTIO staff to fulfill its The latter capability will be important because obligations, the observatory should maintain an the majority of the faintest and most distant adequate engineering staff. Because of its objects are in fact UV-bright. remoteness, CTIO needs to be more self- The WIYN experience is a very promising sufficient than observatories in the Northern model forNOAO. Not only does WIYN yield Hemisphere. The panel thus questions the much better image quality than any other KPNO wisdom of across-the-board cuts of the various telescope, but it also requires roughly only half components of NOAO, since these cuts have as many FTEs (7 versus 16) to maintain, forced CTIO to gradually reduce its engineering compared to the KPNO and CTIO 4-meter staff to the point that it can no longer build telescopes. Replication of the WIYN telescope facility instruments and has had to struggle to is estimated to cost approximately $12 M and develop a CCD controller (ARCON). With would pay for itself, in terms of reduced subcritical staffing, it will be impossible for maintenance cost relative to the current 4-meter CTIO to maintain its current instruments, let telescopes on KPNO and CTIO, in less than 20 alone even assist in the development of further years. instruments. At CTIO, the current 4-meter telescope can provide wide-field imaging and some Kitt Peak National Observatory spectroscopic capability, but a new-technology As Gemini comes on line, NOAO will need 4-meter-class telescope is very much needed. to reduce the operations costs of KPNO. This Given the outstanding conditions available at cannot be accomplished simply by closing the Cerro Pachon, where the median seeing is smaller telescopes. The costs of the entire roughly 0.4", a telescope with superb imaging infrastructure of Kitt Peak must be reduced. capabilities would be exceptionally productive At present, the distribution of observing scientifically. The current 4-meter telescopes, runs at the NOAO 4-meter telescopes is sharply built over 20 years ago with old technology, peaked at three nights. Such a distribution likely cannot be upgraded to better than 0.5" function may be the one that maximizes the optics. At CTIO, a new-technology telescope number of astronomers who use the telescopes would complement or replace the existing in a hands-on fashion. However, it is not the 4-meter telescope, just as WIYN complements distribution function that will maximize the the KPNO 4-meter. scientific productivity of the telescopes. Short runs of instruments and exclusively short Cerro Tololo Inter-American observing runs increase costs for supporting Obseruatory observers, instruments, and telescopes. In the Gemini era, CTIO will have the Dedicated instruments on telescopes and key responsibility for supporting operations at program collaborations will reduce operations, Gemini South, as well as the support of existing instrument maintenance, and travel costs. The CTIO telescopes. CTIO, with or without panel recommends a broader distribution of 24
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical ond Infrared Astronomy observing run lengths, ranging from longer runs New-technology telescopes and their to observations that are much shorter in time but instruments are increasingly interdependent. have better frequency coverage, such as an hour Special-purpose telescopes with dedicated a night for several days or weeks. instruments are highly efficient. KPNO should strive to provide scientific access to its telescopes through queue-scheduled Time trading with non-NOAO telescopes, and remote observing for observations requiring leading to less duplication of instruments, short allocations of telescope time, and should will save costs and enable a more efficient restrict hands-on use of the telescopes mainly to distribution of run lengths. longer observing runs. The experience with the ARC telescope is worth watching; it may A core group of engineers and instrument demonstrate that remote observing through scientists must be retained near each NOAO wideband telecommunications links can be very site. This staffing is necessary independent efficient. Since NOAO must develop the of how the facility instruments are acquired. technical infrastructure to support remote observing at both Gemini telescopes, it should Facility instrument development should be be able to provide similar capabilities for the science-driven, rather than engineering- telescopes at KPNO. opportunity-driven. The WIYN experience has shown that Kitt Peak can deliver excellent seeing, and KPNO It is healthy for the field to support a wide should strive to support programs that take range of instrumentation (and observing) advantage of this capability to provide scientific styles, from experimental to user-friendly. capabilities complementary to observations by NOAO should incorporate the best ideas Gemini North. Toward this end, it may be wise and technologies in its facility instruments, for KPNO to close its smaller telescopes, such whether built in-house or externally. as the 2.l-meter, the 1.3-meter, and the 0.9-meter telescopes, especially if they can be Facility instrument development might replaced by a modern 2-meter-class telescope. proceed via cooperative agreements that If in fact the operations costs of WIYN are as guarantee some telescope time. Initial low as they have been estimated to be, it would science operations could involve key be sensible to consider replacing the existing programs open to the community. 4-meter telescope by a twin of WIYN. However, the fact remains that KPNO does NSF support of students should emphasize not provide unique access to the northern sky involvement with instrumentation for the majority of U.S. astronomers. In a development at the expense of training severely constrained budget, keeping KPNO users. open must be given lower priority than Detector Supply maintaining CTIO. Of the existing telescopes on KPNO, WIYN is clearly the highest priority. Applications of large-array technology to Ifbudgets force a cutback ofoperations on OIR instrumentation continue to generate new instruments with corresponding science KPNO, some of KPNO's current users will lose their access to telescopes. opportunities. Fundamental advances can be made with innovative instruments on telescopes Instrumentation of all apertures. For the first time in the history of astronomy, nearly all the photons in the focal The panel identiflred the following guiding plane will be effectively used, and even modest- principles: size telescopes, properly instrumented, can make important contributions. 25
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy A common problem for both national and the community. Such arangements should be private observatories is large detector array regarded as collaborations between NOAO development and supply. The special instrument scientists and engineers and those requirements of OIR astronomy dictate detector outside NOAO, rather than as subcontracts. specifications vastly different from the Without an in-house champion, no instrument specifications for non-astronomical uses. will succeed. Therefore, it is important that Opportunities for collaboration among NOAO staff, together with the user community, observatories, instrument builders, and space maintain a strong say in what instruments are astronomy missions should be exploited. "right" for NOAO telescopes. Detector and readout technology sharing and Such collaborations are currently under transfer are already in place in OIR astronomy, way, but the community may not recognize and NOAO has played a major role in this them as such because they have come from process. individual contacts rather than a community- wide announcement. NOAO should actively Adaptive Optics encourage any sort ofproposal to provide Some of the greatest scientific gains in OIR instruments and should inform the community astronomy will come from achieving near- of its intent to do so. diffraction-limited image quality, using single Ranking high among the many benefits of telescopes and adaptive optics and distributed such arrangements would be new opportunities affays. Therefore, NOAO should look for for involving graduate students in instrument opportunities to purchase such technologies for development. One example of a model for their telescopes as they become available. future instrument development is the Fabry- The Development Process Perot instrument built at Rutgers University and used extensively at CTIO. It is important that What is the best way to develop innovative the universities maintain instrument and effective OIR instrumentation? The process development capabilities, since the universities works best when directed by a scientist with a are where graduate students are trained. strong motivation to use the instrument to do his NOAO should take advantage of the or her own science. Access to telescopes for opportunity to tap a much larger pool of testing is necessary. Innovative instruments do experienced instrument builders across the not usually come into being because of a nation. There are a number of physics, diffusely perceived need. Rather, innovative astronomy, and space science research instruments are most often developed to address laboratories well equipped and experienced in a particular problem in science. The motivation sophisticated astronomical instrumentation. By comes from individuals with the freedom to inviting these institutions to collaborate in major design and build leading-edge and experimental instrument developments, NOAO can ensure instruments. that each project has a focused, dedicated team lI¡ho Should Build the Facility Instruments for of scientists and engineers, and will be able to NOAO Telescopes? provide leadership in instrument development in The best, most innovative, and most a constrained budget environment. productive instruments should be supported The panel is concerned that NOAO Tucson regardless of origin. NOAO should seek operations may be too large and ineffectively opportunities to leverage NSF support with utilized, and may have the wrong mix of nonfederal funding to provide facility-class personnel. The panel examined the NOAO instruments for its telescopes. Groups would Engineering and Technical Support Division receive guaranteed time in addition to partial and found that the number of engineering funding in exchange for delivery of a facility- projects currently exceeds the number of class instrument that would become available to instrument scientists, creating a pileup of 26
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy projects for certain staff. For the FY 1993 to an open competition and will bring their own FY 1994 period there appeared to be an funding. imbalance between the number of optical and In any case, an engineering and scientific infrared projects, and there was no clear user core must exist within NOAO to, at a minimum, pressure for some projects. The panel found no sustain the telescopes, the control systems, and consistent records oftrue project costs and instruments, and to help set specifications and personnel utilization within the Tucson office of see that they are met for facility-class NOAO; this was particularly true of KPNO and instruments. Access to engineering time is the Central Services at NOAO headquarters' crucial, whether the instrument is built inside or More rigorous project management tools outside NOAO. should be used to track costs and schedules of NOAO should concentrate resources for in- NOAO departments. The panel recommends house instrument development to build on its that a reorganizedNoAo make use of focused current strengths, with a focus on detectors, teams of scientists and engineers to work on a controllers, and fibers. Telescopes need large given project from conception to completion. formats in the optical and infrared, especially (The panel found examples of this team given the clear needs for wide-field imaging. approach in two new autonomous teams: the NOAO should play arole in Gemini GONG group of NOAO and the engineering instrumentation develoPment. group of the international Gemini project') Both KPNO and CTIO should, whenever Focused teams will be particularly useful in appropriate, build their instruments in collaborative instrumentation projects and collaboration with outside groups. should further improve the accounting of project Looking toward the future, and to costs. It would be helpful to identiff a maximize efficiency, NOAO should actively "customer" for each new instrument before explore time trading and dedicated facility development. instrument collaborations with private Finally, the panel found evidence for a observatories that have new-technology wide range of motivation among the service, telescopes. In the best scenario, time trading engineering, and scientific staff. The newer could result in a net savings for the NSF, better staff appeared overworked (very common in science, and reduced operations and national laboratories in this transition period). maintenance costs. Without reorganization, these problems will only become worse in the Gemini era. Data Analysis Software The most successful cases of NOAO has performed an extremelY instrumentation development at NOAO can be important service in the development and traced to good teamwork. Examples are the maintenance of the IRAF image data analysis teams that developed the Hydra multifiber software system, which has become the most spectrograph and the infrared cameras' The IGP widely used international standard for engineering group operates very effectively in astronomical data analysis. However, IRAF this way. NOAO might do well to emulate the was written in a fashion that makes it difficult IGP's most successful teams in all the NOAO for outside groups to contribute original code; engineering programs. the result is a product that is too dependent on NOAO should consider contract the programming staff in Tucson' The IRAF engineering firms as an alternative source of development did not take full advantage of the engineering support to replace a fraction of its very considerable software expertise outside present engineering and technical staff' Tucson. The panel encourages NOAO to Supplemental engineering talent could be consider the development of the next generation brought in as needed for Gemini instruments, of data analysis software, but this time to for example, as those instruments will be bid in 27
A Strategt þr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy develop a more open system with stronger o Community user interface and service, community participation in the project. including wide-band links o Coordination of north-south and Gemini- Observer Support KPNO-CTIO observing programs o Targeted facility instrument production Finally, in order to ensure that astronomers who win time on NOAO telescopes have a In a constrained budget environment, it is minimum level of support necessary to carry out impossible to maximize the opportunities for their proposed science, the panel recommends scientific leadership, both in the excellence of that NSF give NOAO the responsibility and the facilities and in the scientific productivity of necessary funds to support travel, lodging, and those facilities, without sacrificing something. publication costs of observers who win time at NOAO should not attempt to satisfy all the NOAO facilities but lack other sources of diverse observing requirements of the nation's support. astronomers. Nor should it attempt to serve the maximum number of astronomers that its Summary Recommendations for NOAO facilities will bear. It is likely that in a The panel repeats its main scientifically optimum strategy, the annual recommendations for the future role of NOAO number of hands-on users of NOAO facilities as the Gemini era approaches. These will decrease, and so the competition for time recommendations are appropriate no matter on NOAO facilities will become even more what the future budgets may be. severe. In the panel's view such a strategy for NOAO's role is the only way to ensure that Role of USGPO astronomers who win time on NOAO . U.S. user interface facilities will be using the best facilities in the ¡ Technical support for observing world, and to their best advantage. o Liaison with IGP There may be a way, however, for all U.S. ¡ Performance optimization of Gemini astronomers to retain access to a broad spectrum telescopes of observing options even as NOAO becomes ¡ Support for Gemini instrumentation more naffowly focused. For a possible means to development achieve this, we turn to the independent Role of CTIO observatories, discussed in the following o Support for visitors at CTIO telescopes and section. Gemini South r Performance optimization and operation of Gemini South and telescopes on La Serena V. INSTRUMENTATION AT and Cerro Pachon INDEPENDENT OBSERVATORIES o Development of some instruments ¡ Development of a new-technology 3- to Background 4-meter-class telescope As described in Section II, in "Current Role of KPNO Resources for OIR Astronomy," the independent observatories control more than o Support of visitors at KPNO telescopes ¡ of three-fourths of the major telescope assets Performance optimization and operation available to U.S. astronomers, and this situation several telescopes, especially WIYN o will prevail for the foreseeable future. Thanks Development of some instruments to efforts by visionary astronomers and to the Role of NOAO Tucson generosity of individuals, foundations, and state ¡ NOAOadministrativeheadquarters governments, U.S. astronomers have the capacity to carry out far more research in OIR 28
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy astronomy than can be supported by NSF funds Astronomical Sciences to provide such a alone. funding level, especially in view of the need for New technologies offer opportunities to funding Gemini operations and modernizing the increase the performance of all telescopes by telescopes at NOAO, and for NOAO to provide huge factors at relatively modest cost compared a broad spectrum ofobserving options to the to that of the telescopes themselves. The cost of nation's astronomers. Indeed, the panel cannot these new instruments is not trivial, however. A realistically expect NOAO to meet these major facility-class instrument, such as a demands in any case. As has been discussed, to multiobject spectrograph, can cost several maintain scientific leadership within a million dollars. As adaptive optics technology constrained budget, NOAO must narrow its becomes more mature, the panel foresees a focus to those activities it can do best. If it does widespread demand to implement this so, the panel must then ask: Is there another technology to improve the performance of many way to provide some of the observing options major telescopes. thatNOAO must curtail? Many independent observatories lack the financial resources to equip their telescopes A New Program for Instruments at with instrumentation that will enable the Independent Observatories telescopes to perform at their full potential. In For the above reasons, the Panel many instances, NSF investment in recommends that the NSF Division of instrumentation for independent observatories Astronomical Sciences establish a new will be the most cost-effective way to achieve program to provide instruments at specific goals of OIR astronomy. A modest independent observatories that agree to increment in NSF's astronomY provide national peer-reviewed access to instrumentation budget is reasonable given their facilities in proportion to the funds the $300 M ofstate and private capitalization provided. for the new large telescoPes. The proposed facility (including possibly To estimate the net cost of providing an instrument, a mirror, and/or a telescope) must modern instrumentation for telescopes at the leverage substantial nonfederal investment, independent observatories, one can assume which may be in the form of existing telescopes conservatively that every such telescope listed built with nonfederal funds and/or cost sharing in Table I should be equipped with one new with nonfederal funds. facility-class instrument every five years, and NSF funds must be used only to provide that the average cost per instrument will be capital equipment that will directly augment the $2 M for telescopes of aperture 2 to 5 meters scientific performance of the telescope. The and $5 M for telescopes ofaperture greater than panel does not recommend that NSF provide 5 meters. (This estimate is consistent with one funds for operations or maintenance of made by a group of observatory directors at a independent observatories. That would only recent meeting.) The calculation yields a net create a dangerous incentive for independent funding rate of $12.4 Mlyear. Assuming that observatories to begin counting on the NSF to the independent observatories share roughly make up for inadequate fiscal planning' 30% ofthe costs on average, a very strong This program should be distinguished from scientific case exists for NSF to support the the ATI program. In such a program, it is oftcn development of such instruments at a level of impossible to predict that a given effort will about $9 M per year. Such a funding level yield a working device, which would probably would vastly increase the scientific productivity not be suitable for general use in any case. In of the nation's telescoPes. contrast, the instruments to be funded under the In a constrained funding environment, it is program the panel recommends should have a unrealistic for the NSF Division of reasonable expectation of providing important 29
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy and reliable observational capability, based on The panel suggests that NSF implement prior successful experience with similar this program immediately, beginning with a instruments. Of course, there is a continuum portion of existing funding in the present ATI between ATI and the development of facility program and augmenting the program as rapidly instruments. It would be inappropriate to rule as the availability of new funds permits. Since out some level of innovation and risk in the the scheme for national access is untried, we latter. Therefore, ongoing judgments will be need to gain some experience to know whether required to determine whether the proposed it will in fact deliver excellent science at low facility instrument meets the "reasonable cost. If the program can provide a broad and expectation" criterion. A mechanism to make growing range of observing options to all such judgments is suggested in the subsection astronomers through its provision for national "Review of Proposals for Instrument access, the need for NOAO to provide such a Development" below. range of options on its own facilities will This program should be regarded as diminish. This scheme might create an experimental, and its growth or termination environment in which all observatories can should depend on scientific performance. realize cost savings by specializing their Appropriate indicators of performance are facilities. The need for immediacy arises from (l) the quality ofthe science produced, by the fact that there is a window of a few years astronomers at the host institution and by before NSF must provide its full share of external users, as a result of the program; (2) the Gemini operations costs. At that time, NSF and number and quality of proposals to build new NOAO may have to make hard choices instruments; and (3) the intensity and quality of regarding priorities for facilities. These choices the competition for national access to the might be more optimal if they could be made on facilities. the basis of some experience with the new The panel believes that an appropriate level instrumentation program. of NSF support for this program is about $7 M/year. In fact, the NSF already supports Guidelines for National Access the development of OIR instrumentation The goals ofthe national access provision through its grants program, at a current level of are (1) to ensure that the program yields the best about $7 Mlyear (Section II). Most (abottt75%) science, (2) to provide national access to a broad of the NSF funding for OIR instrumentation has range of observing facilities, and (3) to realize been devoted to the development ofadvanced the cost savings that may accrue from efficient technologies, such as adaptive optics and modes of operation of independent interferometry. Funding of these activities was observatories. To achieve these goals, the panel highly recommended by the AASC repoft, and proposes the following guidelines. this panel recommends that NSF continue to First, the conditions for national access fund such programs aggressively with no strings must be flexible and responsive to the operating attached. However, some (about 25%) of the constraints of each participating observatory. ATI funding of OIR astronomy has been used to Any provisions requiring substantial changes in build facility instruments and telescopes at operations will drive costs up and will be a independent observatories. The panel deterrent for that observatory to participate in recommends that this fraction, about $2 I\4/year the program. Therefore, in the first instance the in 1993, be removed from the ATI program and participating observatory should propose its augmented by approximately $5 M/year of new own provisions for national access so as to funds in the NSF Division of Astronomical minimize the impact on costs. In an optimum Sciences budget to meet the recommended system, the possible modes of national access funding level of the new facility instrumentation might vary widely from one observatory to program. another. For example, one observatory might 30
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy elect to provide only "data on demand," through independent observatory has built a modern queue observing by its own staff. An 3.S-meter telescope, at a net capital cost of observatory equipped for remote observing $ l5 M, and submits a proposal to NSF for might provide that option. Another observatory funding to build an instrument costing $3 M. might elect to provide hands-on training of Suppose that the observatory wishes to students by its own staff, and another might discharge its obligation to provide national support long-term projects by experienced access over a period of six years. Assuming that astronomers. Of course, observatories could the telescope value decreases exponentially with also choose to provide any combination of the a mean life of 20 years, the net depreciation of services listed above (or others not listed). the telescope during the first six years would be A mechanism is needed to ensure that the $3.9 M. Suppose further that the annual aggregate of participating observatories will operating costs are $ I .5 M. Then, the net cost meet national needs for a variety of observing to the observatory for the fìrst six years would facilities and modes. It is important for each be $12.9 M. Then, a reasonable fraction of participating observatory to understand whether telescope time to provide for national access its provisions for national access are responsive would be ($3 M)/($tZ.q M) = 0.23, or about 85 to unfulfilled needs. Since NOAO already has nights per year for six years. responsibility to provide national access, and As a second example, suppose that the much experience in doing so, NOAO might Keck Observatory submits a proposal to NSF undertake the responsibilities to provide this for $4 M to support in part the construction of a information and work with proposing new instrument and wishes to discharge its observatories toward an optimal balance of obligation for national access in four years. options to the national community. The Then, assuming a capital investment of $80 M, a proposing observatories would be able to mean life of 20 years, and operating costs of discuss their provisions for national access with $6 M/year, a similar calculation yields 38 nights NOAO before submitting their proposal, and per year ofnational access to Keck for four perhaps modifu these provisions to be more years. However, in this case a further correction responsive to unmet needs as appropriate. is warranted because the OIR astronomers at the The primary goal of the program is to California Institute of Technology and the enable excellent science, for both the University of California system already astronomers at independent observatories and represent a significant fraction (about 15%) of those without access to their own facilities. the active OIR astronomers nationwide. Since it Therefore, the fraction of telescope time would be awkward for these astronomers to provided for national access by participating apply for national access time on their own observatories should be proportionate to the telescope, it would be appropriate to reduce the NSF funds provided for new instrumentation, as national access time by a factor of 0.85, giving a a fraction of the amortized capital cost of the final result of32 nights per year for four years. nonfederal facilities. If the fraction were Additional examples of sharing are the greater, that would remove the incentive for Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2MASS. These many of the best independent observatories to are projects currently being undertaken by participate and the program would not yield the university consortia to produce large-scale best science. If less, the program would not photometric and spectroscopic surveys using meet the national need for access to a broad special-purpose telescopes and instruments. In spectrum of observing options. these examples, the national benefit is open The principle of proportionate access and access to extraordinarily powerful and unique how much national access time the program databases. Such arrangements would be might deliver can be illustrated by two attractive to the owners of the telescopes if they hypothetical examples. First, suppose that an were to individually reap more, not less, high- 31
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy quality data by participating in such a program. The proposed terms for national access, That may be true in many cases, because including a plan for user support, would then modern instruments with wide fields can often become part of the proposal to NSF for the new provide major gains in telescope efficiency' For instrument. The proposal should then be judged such a scheme to be acceptable to the on overall scientifrc merit, with criteria community, it is also essential that new funding, including (l) the value of the science enabled not repackaged funding, be used to initiate this for both the host observatory and national users, program. (2) the scientific leverage provided by An instrumentation program funded nonfederal cost sharing, and (3) the extent to steadily at the recommended level of $7 Mlyeat which the proposed instrument meets an would provide for national access the equivalent unfulfi lled scientific requirement. of 85 nights per year of Keck time plus two Finally, the panel recommends that the modern 3.S-meter telescopes full-time. (In fact, national access time provided by the the aggregate program might yield a richer mix participating independent observatories be of observing options.) This program could distributed through a national time allocation significantly alleviate the current shortage of committee (TAC). Of course, before the TAC access time to well-equipped telescopes. The meets, the independent observatories should national access time provided would not be the screen proposals to use their facilities, just as only scientific benefit of the program, however. NOAO does. The TAC will need to know Additional scientific benefit would result from whether the proposals are suitable for that the increased observing power that would facility and the reasons, technical and otherwise. accrue to the independent observatories. A nationalTAC would have the following These hypothetical examples are intended advantages: (1) it would ensure that the not to serve as specific guidelines, but rather to national access time is granted on the basis of illustrate the principles by which a reasonable scientific merit alone, as determined by amount of national access might be calculated. competitive peer review; (2) astronomers could The program will probably work best if propose to a single agency, according to a participating observatories are free to propose standard format; (3) if a proposal were found to any provisions that they see fit. For example, an be scientifically excellent but unsuitable for a observatory may wish to propose a mix of given observatory, the TAC could attempt to observing options on a variety ofits telescopes. identiff an alternative facility; and (4) a single The panel believes that the review process TAC would probably be the most efficient would provide sufficient incentive for procedure. participating observatories to offer a reasonable The proposed program would have at least amount of national access time on their one significant new advantage for the science facilities. that could be carried out: it would greatly Since each national access arrangement simplify and streamline programs of would carry administrative and other costs, coordinated or synoptic observations. Many there would be a threshold instrument cost such programs arise in OIR astronomy, from below which the benefits of national access are studies of time-variable phenomena and not sufficient to justify incurring these costs' periodicity searches, and in particular This threshold might be in the range of $0'5 M observations eoordinated with spaceborne to $1 M, depending on circumstances. A observatories (such as HST, ROSAT) for which flexible mechanism for determining this increased longitude coverage is often crucial. A threshold is suggested in the next subsection, national TAC could consider proposals for near- "Review of Proposals for Instrument simultaneous or sequential use of several large Development." telescopes that would otherwise be unlikely to be scheduled separately for a single program. 32
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy This qualitatively new observing eapability as an ATI program item or a facility-class might also justifu modest NASA support for instrument. If the latter, the committee must such programs, or the instruments to carry them further decide whether the proposed instrument out, as suggested in Section VI. meets the cost threshold for national access, and whether the national access provisions are Review of Proposals for Instrument equitable, according to the principles described Development in "Guidelines for National Access" above. I The panel also recommends that proposals to NSF for grants for instrumentation VI.PROGRESS WITHIN A development (both facility instruments and CONSTRAINED BUDGET advanced technology instruments) should be selected on the basis ofan annual review by Overview an NSF jury committee. The panel believes that such a process, details of which are Here the panel summarizes its major described below, would be an effective recommendations and states priorities for NSF mechanism for optimizing the scientific benefits funding of OIR astronomy. In doing so, the of NSF funding of instrument development. panel is mindful of the uncertain prospects for The jury committee would review and seek to growth of the NSF astronomy budget. The coordinate instrumentation plans at NOAO, the panel is confident, however, that the enorrnous independent observatories, and the recent increase in the power of ground-based collaborations of outsiders with NOAO. OIR telescopes to enable major advances in our There are two major advantages to a jury understanding of the universe, together with review. First, it solves a problem raised by a major capital investment in new telescopes, both number of correspondents-namely, that they national and private, makes a strong case for a cannot make informed judgments when modest increase in the NSF astronomy budget' reviewing a proposal for instrumentation The panel recommends a strategy in which because they do not have a clear understanding NSF can, over the next several years, increase of the global context. A given program may be its annual funding of OIR astronomy by fine technically, but it is difficult to assess approximately $10 M in 1994 dollars' This whether it is the scientifically most valuable one increase is essential to properly support Gemini, relative to other alternatives. Second, and the instrumentation program for national and perhaps most important, a jury review provides private observatories, and the continuation ofa a powerful educational forum for all strong program at the existing NOAO facilities' participants, which could accelerate technology With this increment, NSF funds would be development and encourage cooperation where leveraged by the enormous nonfederal appropriate. Indeed, the jury committee should investment in OIR facilities in the past decade, search for economies of scale and opportunities allowing these new telescopes to reach their full to avoid duplication of effort, especially in scientific potential while providing access for instrument subsystems (e.g., controllers, ø// astronomers. detector anays). Perhaps the greatest benefit of If such a boost to the NSF's astronomy such a review committee would come not in the base budget is not possible, then first priority judgment of the proposals at hand, but in the must go to support of the Gemini operations' If guidance provided for future instrument no additional funding is added to the astronomy development. base budget, then the initiation of Gemini In addition to determining the scientific operations would have to come at the expense of merits of the proposed instruments, the jury other existing national OIR facilities, committee might be able to advise NSF whether particularly those that are the least unique. This a given instrument proposal should be regarded allocation of resources would cause many -tJ
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy excellent astronomers to become KPNO would find that their access to telescopes disenfranchised, the field would suffer from the would be sharply curtailed and the competition loss oftheir expertise, and educational much more intense than it is now. An example opportunities for future generations would be of collateral damage under this scenario is that diminished. science education at universities would suffer Section IV above details recommendations because many professors would not be able to for a new strategy for the operation of NOAO, maintain and engage students in active research which the panel recommends regardless of the programs in OIR astronomy. Another major budget future. The general recommendations casualty would be the loss of the internship below are a restatement of many of these program for undergraduate and graduate guiding priorities. students. The panel's priorities for NOAO operations No-Growth Scenario are clear: If the NSF Division of Astronomical L Geminioperations, Sciences must operate under level funding, even 2. Continued operations at CTIO, with the completion of the Gemini telescopes, 3. Operations of WIYN, then there will be no alternative to a major 4. Continued operations of the 4-meter cutback of operations and closing or privatizing telescope at KPNO, of existing facilities. Gemini will be a leading 5. Other unique instrumentation development at scientific facility and is an international Tucson, and commitment that must be supported. 6. All otherNOAO operations. In this no-growth scenario, NOAO must absorb the full $8 M U.S. cost of the Gemini In a very limited budget, the panel recommends project (including both the $5.5 M for the U'S. cutting from the bottom of this list while share of IGP operations and the $2.5 M cost of preserving the functions above. (Instrument providing the resources for U.S. access to upgrades are implied in priorities 1 to 4.) Gemini). Uniform cutting of all services now provided by Given the unique access to the southern NOAO is specifically not an acceptable option. skies offered by CTIO, and the duplication of The panel estimates that even in the worst many of KPNO's capabilities in the independent budget situation, NOAO would have sufficient observatories in the Northern Hemisphere, funds for priorities I to 4. higher priority must be given to continued The panel appreciates that substantial operations at CTIO. At KPNO, the WIYN savings cannot be made simply by closing small telescope and limited operations of the 4-meter telescopes, as these facilities cost very little to telescope could continue, but probably all other operate. Only by closing or drastically scaling telescopes, as well as the bulk of the support back an entire observatory can one expect to operations in Tucson, would likely have to be save funds of the magnitude required in a closed. Whatever remained open at KPNO flat-budget scenario. The panel's priority is to would have to operate with a reduced support keep the unique facilities open if at all possible, staff, in a much less hand-holding mode of and to concentrate cutbacks on the downtown operation. The central services provided by Tucson operations, while at the same time NOAO to its three observatories, KPNO, CTiO, reducing the personnel at KPNO to a minimum and NSO, would effectively cease. level. Such cutbacks would come at a scientific NOAO would have to sharply restrict its price, such as the loss ofcapacity to instrumentation program. Moreover, it would immediately repair equipment that fails for one be impossible for NOAO to build anY reason or another. (Scheduling oflonger runs new-technology telescopes, even through and service observing can mitigate this loss, partnerships. Astronomers who depend on 34
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy however.) In any case, it is better to have instrumentation program at the independent limited service than no service at all. The panel observatories outlined above. is further mindful that telescopes other than Although funding of IGP operations will those owned by NOAO operate on Kitt Peak and not rise to the stationary level until 2003, the also benefit from the infrastructure provided by panel recommends an immediate boost to the NOAO. The panel, under even the worst budget NSF astronomy base budget to allow scenario, does not recommend that KPNO be augmentation of the facilities instrumentation closed. program outlined above. This would give the Beyond stating these scientific priorities NSF time to judge the effectiveness of the for NOAO, the panel does not attempt to program and to make mid-course coffections, if provide a detailed road map or model for needed, wellbefore Gemini operations begin. NOAO to reduce operations costs as required. That is the proper responsibility of NOAO Modest Growth Scenario management. In a modest growth scenario, the panel With a truly flat budget, NSF would not be assumes that, by 2003, NSF will be able to able to provide new funds for facility augment its annualbudget for OIR astronomy instruments at independent observatories, but by $5.5 M to cover the U.S. obligation to the would need to initiate the new program at a IGP, so that NOAO funding can remain level in modest level within the existing budget of the constant dollars. Second, the panel assumes that NSF instrumentation grants program. The NSF will be able to augment its annual budget national access to independent observatories for facility instruments at independent enabled by this funding level would not begin to observatories by $4.5 Mlyear, beginning almost substitute for the loss of access at KPNO. immediately. Thus, the panel assumes that NSF Finally, in this scenario, the sharp will be able to increase its net annual funding of reductions in activity at KPNO and in the level OIR astronomy by approximately $10 M by of support of engineering and technical services, 2003. and the overall pressures on the NOAO budget, With such an increase, the nation would would be certain to have a negative impact on have a very healthy and productive support for the scientific activities of the infrastructure for OIR astronomy. The panel National Solar Observatories, believes that NOAO can ensure that the United States will gain full scientific value from the Minimal Growth Scenario Gemini telescopes and assert leadership in OIR If NSF can increase its annual funding for astronomy. To do so, NOAO must further focus OIR astronomy by part, but not all, of the $10 M its resources on Gemini science and other areas recommended, the panel envisages continuing where it can excel. As discussed above, even in fierce competition for resources between the this optimistic scenario NOAO cannot satisff all independent observatories, which need the diverse needs of the nation's astronomers, instrumentation funds, and NOAO, which must and competition for time on NOAO telescopes provide the U.S. interface to Gemini, support its may become even more intense. However, with observers, and strive to maintain scientific bold and frugal management, combined with leadership in some areas. How should NSF external partnerships, NOAO will be able to decide to distribute its limited funds in the face exert leadership in instrumentation and will of such competition? have a good chance to replace some of its older The first priority of any boost to the NSF telescopes with powerful, well-instrumented astronomy base budget must go to Gemini new-technology telescopes. operations, as discussed above. Any boost Great scientific leverage will result from beyond the amount payable to IGP operations the augmented program to fund facility would be available for the facility instruments for powerful new telescopes at 35
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy independent observatories. Moreover, the Summary national access time provided to astronomers The panel has outlined above three possible through this program should mitigate the loss of futures for OIR astronomy in the coming observing options to astronomers who now decade. depend primarily on NOAO for access to telescopes. These astronomers would enjoy a ¡ In the most pessimistic scenario the panel net gain in observing time and options if this recommends that the above listed cutbacks program can be funded fullY. be applied to current NOAO operations in The strategy for growth recommended here order to fund the Gemini operations. is not lavish. The panel makes no recommendations for major new facilities that . The panel strongly recommends that the have not already been recommended by the NSF increase the base funding of the AASC report and, in fact, are already under Division of Astronomical Sciences in order way. The $5.5 M cost to support operations of to cover the $5.5 M U.S. contribution to the the IGP is modest given the $88 M capital international Gemini project operations investment by NSF. With level funding budget. (excluding the IGP operations costs), NOAO management will be challenged to take on the r In a modest growth scenario, the panel new responsibility of the U.S. interface to recommends a $10 Mlyear increase to the Gemini, to build new facilities, and to maintain astronomy base budget, which would scientific leadership. The only new program support both the Gemini operations and the recommended is the $4.8 M augmentation for new facilities instrumentation program for instrumentation at independent observatories. the independent observatories. That is conservative, too. The scientific opportunities presented by the new telescopes at Without a boost to the NSF astronomy base independent observatories could easily justif' a budget, the initiation of Gemini operations will much greater investment bY NSF. force the closure of productive NOAO facilities now in operation. This would be a great shame Support of Space Astronomy Missions and a waste of productive facilities and talent' The national time allocation committee that The loss of national access to telescopes would the panel recommends would enable also be harmful to U.S. higher education in astronomers to carry out, often for the first time, science. Given the huge investment in space- powerful coordinated and synoptic observing based facilities by NASA and the investment by campaigns in support of space observations' nonfederal sources in other ground-based Such programs are likely to spawn demand for telescopes, the recommended $10 M/year of new instruments (e,g., common, if not similar, additional NSF support for OIR astronomy is a imagers or polarimeters) on several telescopes very modest amount of money. Yet without it so that data can be optimally matched. To neither the NASA investment in space facilities, realizethese benefits, the panel recommends nor NSF's investment in Gemini, nor the that NSF continue to work with NASA to investment of the private observatories in their develop a coordinated strategy for support of new facilities will reach their full scientific space astronomy missions by ground-based ÃIR potentiai. telescopes. It would be appropriate for NASA to support a share of costs for instrument support and observer access in proportion to the annual national use oftelescopes (national or private) in support of space observations. 36
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Tha National Academy Press was created by the National Academy of Sciences to publish the reports issued by the Academà and by the Naäonal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Meilicine, and the National Reseaich Counci!, all operating under the charter granted to the National Academy o'f S.i..tõ.s by the Congress óf tne United States'
