Comments on: Telescope Tensions

By: my blog

my blog — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:42:48 +0000

check this out…

this is mine…

By: Rob Ivison

Rob Ivison — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:33:35 +0000

Tom – as you know, modifying a VLT UT in any significant way has been ruled out for at least 3 reasons – 1) cost, against a background in which E-ELT is ESO’s (AstroNET’s etc.) highest priority; 2) engineering/operational issues; 3) impact on VLTI.

ESO are split re: VISTA spectroscopy. One relative youngster expressed the view that it’s the best option whereas two very senior folk were less enthusiastic. I argued that any Call for instrumentation shouldn’t be too prescriptive, tapping the creativity of the world’s instrument (and science) groups. We’ll see…

By: Tom Shanks

Tom Shanks — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:59:39 +0000

Rob – I assume that the intake of breath was even sharper for VLT options for wide-field spectroscopy? Indeed, senior ESO people at JENAM were saying that the VISTA option for high multiplex MOS was being viewed as a serious contender by ESO – although VISTA not yet being an ESO telescope may provide initial obstacle to progress.

News from the RAS Community Forum meeting at NAM – Keith Mason said that DIUS had helped with exchange rate issue but the deficit was still 10m GBP in the current financial year due to “second order effects”. Would be dealt with by “slowing projects.” New ground-based review would happen and initially report by October. Also a longer term 10-year review would be put in place – community to be consulted via web-page. Not clear how other areas would be similarly reviewed/reprioritised. Keith also said he had “no idea” what budget would be next year.

By: Rob Ivison

Rob Ivison — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:15:50 +0000

The possibility of exploring an AAO/ESO timesharing agreement was raised at today’s STC meeting in Garching. An interesting short-term option, perhaps.

An ESO call for (very) large (>>LP) “Public” spectroscopy programmes with FLAMES and the upgraded VIMOS (mid-2010 with 4 new red-sensitive chips and some other improvements) is also envisaged, perhaps this year.

Options for VISTA spectroscopy are not viewed as dead within ESO, but you hear sharp intakes of breath around the council room when it is mentioned. Wide-field options for La Silla telescopes come in the same category.

By: Tom Shanks

Tom Shanks — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:28:20 +0000

Steve – yes, am very keen to pursue the VISTA option for high multiplex spectroscopy, as discussed on this blog recently. But the timescale is going to be 5-7 years even if the proposal gets accepted. In the shorter term, there may also be possibilities to use existing, available, UK 4-m wide-field telescopes in the same way BigBOSS is proposing to use the KPNO 4-m for high multiplex MOS. All these relatively cheap options should also be considered.

By: andyxl

andyxl — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:31:35 +0000

Martin – and of course the 60inch in Tenerife, and the 1m JKT. In other words, during the 4m era, we did in fact gradually close down / withdraw from smaller/older facilities. Doing the same thing to 4m telescopes in the 8m era is happening but slowly; and of course you only really save money by withdrawing from a site rather than a facility, so whats most cost-effective is not always obvious (you think I am talking about La Palma or JAC, but how about Diamond/SSRS/Daresbury etc?)

By: John Peacock

John Peacock — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:47:49 +0000

Martin. I remember such a panel – but how widely did it take input? I’m pretty sure there was no “consultation” such as we have rightly demanded from STFC in the current crisis (which perhaps indicates that things were not always as wonderful in the good old days as we have liked to imply when indulging in STFC-bashing). I suspect that the withdrawal from the AAT was heavily influenced by Ian Corbett planning how to balance the books post-ESO. And Corbett also pulled the strings the other way: VISTA was very much his baby. He saw an opportunity to extract some one-off money from the treasury, and the machine was funded before many people knew about it. I remember being in a meeting of the AAT Board in either 96 or 97: Ian’s phone rang – and following a short conversation he said, “well guys, you’ve got yourselves a new 4m survey telescope”. But I don’t recall discussions about spectra with VISTA until the recent meetings in which ESO realised it needed something like WFMOS, but wasn’t willing to modify a VLT top end.

By: Martin Ward

Martin Ward — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:59:55 +0000

Dear all

A day or so ago Richard Wade mentioned the so-called “Ward panel” report of many years ago (thanks to Tom Shanks for telling me). Actually I’m not a regular reader of this formum (for generic reasons associated with the shortness of life etc…).
However, I can indeed confirm his claim that a recommendation to withdraw UK financial support from the AAT was contained in that report. This was to be a phased process, and we recommended that links be maintained on the instrumentation side with the AAO group. In practice of course, the implementation of recommendations seldom follow a smooth course, and alternative scenarios often emerge as a result of focussing minds on an unpalitable option. The inevitable result is that we seldom make the savings originally predicted. This was managable in “the good ole days” but now things are very different…

postscript: as far as I can recall the UK has withdrawn completely from some ground-based telescopes eg. the Egyptian 74″ and the Spanish 1m Stephenson telescope!

By: Steve W

Steve W — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:07:14 +0000

Tom – putting those two threads together, at the time VISTA funding was secured it was seen by many (I can name at least two people) as a replacement for the AAT, and indeed the suggestion was made (but not taken up) that in the design phase consideration should be given to the possibility of wide-field spectroscopy in the future. Then you could have the best of both worlds – AAO instrumentation at an excellent site.

By: Tom Shanks

Tom Shanks — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:29:17 +0000

I remember Ian Corbett saying that UK AAT time share would be maintained by AAO winning UK instrument grants but that certainly hasn’t happened. Meanwhile the US and the rest of the world is overtaking us in terms of cosmological redshift surveys with BOSS, BigBOSS (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.0468) etc. The UK needs continuing access to 2dF as JAP says and then we also need access to upgraded and updated high multiplex wide-field spectrographs. ESO are moving to a call for proposals for wide-field spectrographs in the next few weeks but there is also a need for interim instruments on a shorter timescale at our presently available 4-m telescopes, some of which have appropriately wide fields. This would be relatively cheap at least.

Cheap options may be needed given the gloomy rumours currently circulating at NAM/JENAM – STFC may be in the red to the tune of >~ 70m GBP (just my estimate!) mainly due to currency fluctuations – ie probably worse state than at last crisis. Things seem to be moving fast so that there even seems to be uncertainty whether the new ground-based review will actually take place. Only hope is for some fiscal stimulus in budget – but even here the emphasis in Lord Drayson’s speech was mainly on space. We could use that (EUCLID?) but space projects take 10 years and we need something earlier. The fiscal stimulus assumption is, of course, optimistic!