Docstoc

SMARTS

Document Sample
SMARTS Powered By Docstoc
					SMARTS - STATUS & PLANS



            Alistair Walker, October 2003
     SMARTS = Small & Moderate Aperture
         Research Telescope System

                         Members and P.I.’s

•   American Museum of Natural History (Mike Shara)
•   Georgia State University (Todd Henry)
•   NOAO (Alistair Walker)
•   Northern Arizona University (via GSU) (Dave Koerner)
•   Ohio State University (Darren DePoy)
•   Space Telescope Science Institute (Howard Bond)
•   State University of New York at Stony Brook (Fred Walter)
•   Yale University (Charles Bailyn)
1.5m
 1.5m
                0.9m
                 0.9m



        1.0m
         1.0m




                        1.3m
                         1.3m
            TELESCOPES & INSTRUMENTS
• 1.5-m + Cass Spectrograph, 30% service
• 1.3-m + dual IR/CCD Imager, 100% Queue, synoptic-optimized (ex-
  2MASS)
• 1.0-m Not scheduled in 2003
• 0.9-m + CCD Imager, 50% service, all runs 7 nights

                                and
                            PEOPLE
• Two instrument specialists
• Three observers (2 for 1.3-m, 1 for 0.9-m)
• One part-time observer (for 1.5-m, shared with CTIO)
• Other support from CTIO & AOSS, charged per-use
• PLUS YALE (management, data distribution, 1.3-m Q scheduling):
  STScI (1.5-m service scheduling), GSU (0.9-m operations)
• Operations Model developed from YALO
            FOR THREE YEARS (2003-2005)
                          NOAO provides
• Telescopes, guiders, instruments
• $100K in 2003
• 5-10% of Alan Whiting (CTIO post-doc), a few % at CTIO Dir level
                             NOAO gets
• Savings of approx $400K per annum compared to running the 1.5-m and
  0.9-m telescopes alone
• Consortium helps defray mountain costs
                              Users get
•   33% of time in 2003, 25% in 2004-2005
•   Service and Queue Opportunities
•   Potential access to new instruments
•   Time according to their contribution ($, telescopes, instruments)
•   Enhanced research and educational opportunities
•   Chile retains 10% of the time
                  What’s Imminent?

• New partner for 2004-2005 = Delaware (John Giziz)
• NSF review of SMARTS so-far, plus budget & operations
  plans for 2004-2005
• Science results!
• Attract another participant at the $50-$100K/annum level.
  Potential partner = Vanderbilt/Fisk (Keivan Stassun)
• Montreal IR Imager on 1.5-m (AMNH Project, 5 months in
  each of 2004 and 2005) - from April 2004
• 1.0-m with 4K CCD Imager (built by OSU) - from May
  2004
              Science Programs for 2003B
• NOAO --Mixture of Survey projects & shorter P.I. programs
   – J. Huchra, The 2MASS Redshift survey, 1.5-m spectroscopy
   – J.A. Smith, uvgriz Southern Standards Stars, 0.9-m photometry
   – G. Meurer, Star formation in HI Selected Galaxies, 0.9-m
   – N. Suntzeff, The w project, 0.9-m
   – And 35 other other Projects, overall over-subscription rate 1.33

• Other Consortium Members - 36 different programs, 24 P.I.’s
   – Yale (Bailyn): Optical/IR observations of high-energy transients
   – GSU (Henry): CTIOPI parallax program
   – SUNY (Simon): SIM target selection program
   – OSU (DePoy) & STScI (Sahu): Microlensing events
   – STScI (various): Extensive spectroscopic monitoring programs
   – Yale (Urry) & GSU (Miller): AGN reverberation mapping
   – SUNY (Walter): Simultaneous observations with FUSE
              Science Education - examples

• SUNY (Walter)
   – Assembling a data set for a Cepheid Lab for undergraduate majors
   – Advanced undergraduate/beginning graduate course where the
     students write proposals, get the data, and reduce it all in the same
     semester

• Yale, GSU, OSU, SUNY
   – At least 12 grads/undergrads at the 4 universities carrying out
     research on SMARTS data this semester
   – Grad student contributions to scheduling and operations (Yale,
     GSU)
• CTIO REU Program
            Bottom Line - is it worth it?

                         Plusses

• Productive and efficient facility
• Flexible observing modes
• New telescope (1.3-m) and instrumentation
• Core group of keen users doing programs of substance -
  $600K per annum program, not counting scientists
• Retains access for NOAO users - only 3 lowly rated
  proposals did not get time (0.9-m) in 2003B. Although 70
  1.5-m and 126 0.9-m nights requested for 2004A.
• Allowed CTIO to re-program ~10% of its telescope
  operations budget (~6% of NOAO funds spent in Chile)
          Bottom Line - is it worth it?

                        Minuses

• Long-term viability? 1.5-m telescope needs lots of
  maintenance, image quality issues
• Unbalanced instrumentation - fiber-fed synoptic
  spectrograph on 1.5-m?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:9/17/2012
language:Unknown
pages:12