1 / 10

NOAO Users Committee 2003

NOAO Users Committee 2003. Jeremy Mould October 23, 2003. Users Committee charge. Comment on the U.S. Gemini support model, as implemented by the NOAO Gemini Science Center Taft Armandroff’s presentation after lunch Proposal selection, phase II support Queue and operations support

elvina
Download Presentation

NOAO Users Committee 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NOAO Users Committee 2003 Jeremy Mould October 23, 2003

  2. Users Committee charge • Comment on the U.S. Gemini support model, as implemented by the NOAO Gemini Science Center • Taft Armandroff’s presentation after lunch • Proposal selection, phase II support • Queue and operations support • Data reduction support • Delivery of first generation instruments • Planning of second generation instruments • Fostering the user community

  3. CTIO and KPNO • Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the CTIO and KPNO facilities • in the context of the system of U.S. telescopes, • taking into account the proposed evolution of this system over the next 5 years • This morning’s presentations • SOAR, SMARTS at CTIO • Maryland resources at KPNO • System workshop this year

  4. KP, CT support of Gemini, independents, radio, HST, Chandra, SIRTF. • Comment on the importance of the CTIO and KPNO facilities in the context of their present and near-term roles; apart from their GO use: this includes support of • Gemini • independent U.S. large-aperture telescopes, • multi-wave length programs • radio facilities • space missions such as HST, Chandra, SIRTF =>

  5. Our operating modes • Comment on operational modes for the 4-m telescopes in terms of their scientific return. • One aspect is the distribution of observing run lengths, as reflecting commitment to surveys and other major programs. • Another, in a time of lean budgets, is the trade-off between operating partnerships vs. reduced staffing support in a CheapOps mode.

  6. Instruments • Discuss the desirable instrument evolution for the 4-m telescopes over the next 5 years. Comment on the adopted procurement strategies, realizing that we live at a time of under-instrumented 8-m telescopes. • Major instrumentation program presentation, David Sprayberry, this afternoon • Blanco, Alistair Walker

  7. Small telescopes • Consider the role and priority of nationally supported telescopes with apertures less than 3.5-meters in the system context • SMARTS in the South • 2.1 meter & 0.9 meter in North • Are there further requirements ? • What ? • Why ?

  8. TAC • Comment on the current telescope time assignment procedures, considering in particular the effectiveness of the current structure • Presentation tomorrow by • Todd Boroson, • Dave De Young, • Tod Lauer

  9. Data Products Program • Comment on the current and planned development of Data Products Program facilities and their changing relationship to the users of NOAO facilities • Presentation by Todd Boroson & Dick Shaw • Data transport system • NSA • pipelines

  10. Thinking a little beyond the charge • The dog that didn’t bark • We get feedback from users on what is not working • We do not get feedback from users on what we don’t have, or don’t attempt • As the KP/CT apertures shrink relative to the frontline, • more powerful instruments are needed • but the NSF resources are drawn elsewhere • So, find partner resources

More Related