Comments on: Overheated Telescopes

By: Big Kit Vote Trap « The e-Astronomer

Big Kit Vote Trap « The e-Astronomer — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:26:55 +0000

[...] as John Peacock reminded us recently, it ain’t clear that taking money from the LFCF is a good thing. These capital investments [...]

By: World’s fastest and most sensitive astronomical camera

World’s fastest and most sensitive astronomical camera — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:28:50 +0000

[...] Overheated Telescopes « The e-Astronomer [...]

By: Michael Merrifield

Michael Merrifield — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:22:24 +0000

Although such historical comparisons would be interesting, they might be somewhat misleading with the UK only joining ESO after most of the major build up to and including the VLTs. Looking to the future, I suspect that no government will sign up for the capital build phase of E-ELT without some assurance that a fair share of contracts will come its country’s way to justify the expenditure to its voters (notwithstanding EU procurement rules!).

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:05:53 +0000

Actually if ESO don’t use a juste retour policy, has anyone ever seen a table of national distribution of industrial contracts it awards? Would be interesting and probably pretty relevant in such discussions, with “Impact” being so high on the agenda and all. I can’t see it anywhere on their site or in the Annual Reports.

And shouldn’t that be “retour juste” anyway?

By: Rob Ivison

Rob Ivison — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:22:08 +0000

The questionnaire lacks a box to demand wide-field spectroscopy, but wide-field spectroscopy is not singled out for omission. As you suggest, the comment boxes should be used if you feel strongly about something and can’t find an appropriate box to tick – that’s why they’re there.

The consultation document states: “The ASTRONET Roadmap placed a strong emphasis on the need for new wide-field spectroscopic instrumentation and has set up a review to explore this issue, from which we hope to have input for our final report. The issue has become critical for the UK following the decision of the Gemini Board not to continue with WFMOS.”

Later, it states: “While E-ELT is ESO’s overwhelming priority for the foreseeable future (after ALMA), the community has also been pushing for a wide-field spectroscopic capability. As a result, a Call for New Instrumentation is imminent.”

You can rest assured that an entire community isn’t being ignored – not yours anyway

By: Tom Shanks

Tom Shanks — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:55:52 +0000

I look in vain for any mention of Wide Field Spectroscopy in the Ground-Based Review questionnaire. No mention of WFMOS, WFMOS substitutes or even AAT 2dF! Seems to me like a complete community is being ignored here. E-ELT and SKA are worth supporting but both have limitations. E-ELT instruments frequently only reach the diffraction limit of a 4-m rather than a 42-m telescope. Also the etendue of E-ELT is a fraction of even present day instruments such as AAT 2dF! SKA will also give only limited info from a 21cm line-strength, redshift and/or a continuum flux – SKA will therefore need support from wide-field spectroscopic instruments like WFMOS. WFMOS-style instruments are certainly also more multi-purpose and cheaper than E-ELT or SKA.

Looks like anyone interested in wide-field spectroscopy is just expected to use the open comment boxes in the GFBR questionnaire to support their area – I recommend you do!

By: Michael Merrifield

Michael Merrifield — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:48 +0000

As I said, I don’t think it is necessarily a good way to make decisions, but it is a non-negligible factor. Unfortunately, history does not entirely agree with your analysis, Andy. Everyone did not become X-ray astronomers post-Einstein, and, equally to the point, X-ray astronomers did not themselves branch out into other wavebands once the reason for concentrating just in that part of the spectrum — the need to be effectively an instrument specialist — went away. Even today you can still find a surprising number of “X-ray astronomy” conferences as opposed to conferences on astrophysical topics.

Yes, SKA will be revolutionary in what it does, but so will E-ELT. So, once you have agreed that both will be extremely exciting, you have to look to other factors to decide which should be this country’s first priority. These factors should surely include what existing size of community we have with the track record and expertise to be in a position to lead as much as possible of that exciting science.

By: andyxl

andyxl — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:23:32 +0000

Mike – the best facilities / instruments create their own communities. SCUBA has been an enormous success despite the original submm community being small; when it arrived it was by a clear margin the best in the world, and opened up new kinds of science, so lots of people jumped on the boat. Going back a few years, before Einstein, X-ray astronomy was a substantial but specialised community. After Einstein, everybody was an X-ray astronomer. If SKA is as good as we hope, many many more people will want to use it than currently use MERLIN. That certainly includes me. (I am already thinking that eMERLIN and LOFAR are big enough steps that I want to do some stuff with them, even though I have never submitted a MERLIN proposal.)

By: dave Carter

dave Carter — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:28:26 +0000

I would say Mike that the science goals of the community, and how they might be achieved, should drive any such decision, rather than the size of the communities which use legacy facilities (slightly worried about this phrase from Andy, but lets use it for the moment anyway) at the same wavelengths.

By: Michael Merrifield

Michael Merrifield — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:45:47 +0000

The point of Astronet’s conclusion about phasing was to try and avoid that happening: by staggering the expenditure, with the peak of E-ELT before SKA, there is more chance of there being enough money to go around, and astronomers not being cut out from one or the other.

I am not sure it is necessarily a good way to reach such decisions, but it is worth asking how big each “half” actually is in the UK at the moment. Given the difference in oversubscription rate between the UK’s single premier radio-astronomy facility and that for the multiplicity of OIR facilities, the current numbers are fairly clear-cut. However, as we also know already, radio astronomers do a far better job of making a clear coherent case for their corner.