Present: Attendees:
Prof. G Gilmore (Chairman) Prof P Koubsky (Ondrejov Obsevatory)
Dr A Adamson (UKIRT) Prof. J Palous (Czech Academy of Sciences)
Prof. J Andersen (NOT/CUO) Prof K Panov (Bulgaria Academy of Sciences)
Dr M Auriere (OMP/TBL) Prof L Szabados (Hungarian Astronomical
Prof. R Bacon (CRAL-Lyon) Association.)
Dr W Boland (NWO/NOVA) Dr J Davies (OPTICON Administrator)
Dr M Dennefeld (OHP)
Prof C Goudis (IAA, NAO/Greece)
Dr R Gredel (Calar Alto)
Dr E Harlaftis (NOA/Greece)
Dr A Mampaso (IAC)
Dr J Melnick (ESO)
Prof. B Nordstrom (EAS)
Dr E Oliva (TNG)
Prof V Piirola (NOTSA)
Dr R Rutten (ING)
Prof J-P Sivan (OHP)
Dr C Vincent (PPARC)
Apologies: Prof. G Fahlman (CFHT), Dr P Murdin (PPARC), Dr P Roche (Faulkes Telescopes), Prof. M Rodono (CNAA),
The Chairman welcomed from the EU Accession Countries: Professor Pavel Koubsky of the Ondrejov Observatory, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Professor Jan Palous, Director of the Astronomical Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Professor Kiril Panov, Director of the Institute of Astronomy, Rozhen, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; and Professor Laszlo Szabados, President of the Hungarian Astronomical Association
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.1 The Chairman reminded members of the role and aims of OPTICON and of the Medium-Sized Telescopes Working Group (WG) in particular. These were to seek better co-ordination and cheaper operations for the medium-sized facilities; to allow continued access to the best resources; to allow enhanced access to Central Europe/EU accession countries and to develop the educational role for the facilities.
1.2 The main focus of the WG was to develop proposals which might achieve EU funding in support of these aims. The primary route for funding was expected to be within the provisions of the next Framework Programme (FP6). The make-up of FP6 is currently under discussion but it was hoped that the Programme would be announced during 2002, and applications sought.
1.3 Key areas within FP6 were expected to be:
i. Transnational Access
Support for major research infrastructures, which may be distributed. It was expected that the EU would fund 100% of the access cost to researchers from states other than that of the owner and operator of each facility. The cost basis for access charges would be negotiable. The probable total amount available, per annum, per infrastructure is 0.1-0.7MEuro, up to a maximum of 20% of the operating costs, over 3-5 years. The scheme is basically an extension of that operating under FP5.
ii. Integrated Initiatives
The aim would be to combine co-operation networks with particular projects e.g. transnational access. Activities might include a co-operation network of operators, plus services e.g. access and RTD projects up to 50% of matched funding. The scheme would expand the support currently available for networks to provide 100% of management costs. It is expected that the scheme would provide several MEuro for 5 years. The proposal is similar to the concept of 'Networks of Excellence'
iii. Communication Network Development
Although details are sparse and far from final, this scheme is expected to provide support to allow the installation of a high performance Grid infrastructure across Europe. If realised the infrastructure would have a significant impact on accessibility to the Astrophysical Virtual Observatory which is currently being developed, especially for potential users in Central Europe.
iv. Design studies
Again details are sparse and far from final, but this scheme is expected to provide support for R&D for new infrastructure. The total percentage allowable is unclear but it might be as much as possibly 50%. Both the proposed ELT and the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) projects could be candidates for support.
v. Capital Funding of New Facilities
The principles of this scheme have yet to be agreed but it is becoming clear that no more than 10% of the capital cost of a major new facility is likely to allowable. Again, proposal for ELT and SKA could be considered, but possibly not until the next (FP7) round since both would be in the design phase during FP6.
vi. Accompanying measures
This would include study panels, workshops and possibly a Fellowship scheme.
2. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
2.1 The Minutes were accepted as a correct record.
3. STATUS OF THE DRAFT EU PROPOSAL
3.1 The Chairmen set out the framework within which the proposal would need to be constructed.
i. applications for time from the common pool needed to be subject to peer review;
ii. the proposal would not seek to provide instruments or support for small telescopes, i.e. typically those less than 2 metres;
iii. facilities included in the proposal would have to be doing competitive world-class science;
iv. observers or staff to be trained would be expected to visit observatories outside their home countries - increasing the links between them and the facilities;
v. the
proposal will seek support for access to the facilities, provided as travel
funds for visiting astronomers and access charges paid to the facilities.
3.3 A management structure would need to be included in the proposal - to organise the assessment of observing time proposals and allocation of funds, but the scale of this structure should not represent a significant fraction of the funds sought.
3.4 To aid the definition of the proposal, Dr Davies had sent out a draft, COMET (Co-operative Operation of Many European Telescopes), which had been circulated before the meeting. A revised draft was then tabled. The timescale was to redraft the proposal within a couple of weeks of this meeting to be then sent to facility boards, management and to national institutions for comment.
3.5 Comments by Members on the draft included:
3.5.1 Introduction
i. Members recommended that greater emphasis be placed on selling the proposal to the EU and on demonstrating that it was meeting its likely requirements. Note should be made that the siting of telescopes was not wholly determined by socio-political issues, but also by climate constraints. Members did not feel that reference to a European brain-drain was now relevant.
ii. Other factors to be included in the case were the benefits of a longer term co-ordinated instrument programme, fostered by closer links between groups; focussing limited resources upon maintaining the telescopes as high quality facilities offering world-class instruments; broadening access from national interests to a truly European community - in this sense EU funding would act as a catalyst. The scheme would help raise the ability of the wider community to compete successfully in an international forum. Members agreed that co-ordination between facilities and pan-European training and access were the key factors.
iii. Participants - It was suggested that reference to 'Agency' should be changed to 'participants' and the Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic correctly referenced.
Members were unclear of the distinction between 'providers', 'users' and 'associates' and sought clarification. Members considered the terms by which new members might join the access scheme or members leave. They agreed that the membership should be dynamic and that the details should take account of the varying scientific requirements of the user community, for example the need to undertake longer-term studies which might not lead to early publications. Dr Rutten emphasised the principle of the competitive market - those facilities in demand would get the time and the EU support and therefore remain in the scheme, those which did not would naturally fall out. It is not clear yet how this works, if 20% of each telescope is paid for. What we need is 20% of the network cost to be paid, so funds can ebb and flow to the best facilities.
iv. Members suggested that the draft include science drivers and goals for the programme.
3.5.2 Planned Activities - infrastructures
i. TAG - members considered the pros and cons of a new TAG for allocation of the common access time and on balance agreed that one should be established. However, the size and complexity of the TAG and any sub-committees needed to be strictly controlled to prevent the administration costs becoming disproportionate with respect to the science benefit. Professor Nordstrom said that a unique TAG had worked for radioastronomy schemes and that Central European applicants had been found to compete well with existing users.
ii. Members did not support the concept of national quotas as they felt this went against EU principles and would be difficult to administer. It was agreed that scientific merit should be a key assessment criteria but this should be in some way balanced by the educational value of a programme and by the international return. It was suggested that rather than try to balance allocations to countries in the short term a longer term average should be the goal, as is the case with partner's allocations of time from large telescopes. There should be no bar to programmes seeking longer than average time allocations, but equally this should not be a requirement.
iii. It was agreed that there should be a COMET Board whose role would be to provide strategic advice to the TAG, on matters such as whether an individual is eligible to apply. The provision of feedback to applicants would be important. The success of the Board structure and COMET management model should be subject to periodic review.
iv. since only 20% of total telescope time would be included within the scheme it was unlikely that the development of unique software for time allocation could be justified, though this might be a goal for the longer term.
v. The need for an inventory of current instruments, detectors and software packages used by the facilities likely to be included in the scheme was identified . Dr Rutten and Dr Davies agreed to take this forward. The EAS, through Professor Nordstrom, offered to complete the inventory of medium-smaller telescopes.
Action: Dr Rutten and Dr Davies to complete
inventory of instruments, detectors and data reduction/pipeline packages
available at the facilities. Professor Nordstrom and Dr Dennefeld to
co-ordinate EAS inventory of telescopes with Dr Davies.
vi. Members agreed that training staff to use the telescopes and software should be included as an aim.
vii. Ownership of the facilities should remain outside the scope of the scheme.
3.5.3 There was a general fear that if the EU did support 20% of the cost of running the telescopes then the Funding Agencies might further reduce their contributions. Dr Vincent suggested that for PPARC the scheme was seen as a way by which the Directors might buy back capability, rather than a further means to make savings.
3.5.4 Operational modes
i. Members suggested that emphasis be placed in the text upon COMET providing the assistance needed to help communities take best advantage of access to word-class facilities, including support in their home countries - such as infrastructures, through support for their national agencies.
ii. Members agreed that there were significant benefits to having astronomers travel to the telescopes rather than rely on service programmes. Service support would be more costly for the facilities and would not offer the same scope for training and interaction with experienced facility staff and other researchers. If the facility required additional staff then these might be provided through the EU's schemes for mobility, allowing young post-doctoral workers to spend time at the telescopes doing research but also supporting COMET observing programmes. Dr Rutten emphasised the need to retain a flexible approach to meet local conditions.
iii. Members had very mixed views on the provision of a travel service but agreed that if it were to be included then the full cost needed to be included in the proposal.
iv. There was a pressing need to assess the potential scale of interest in the scheme from the wider community. Although estimates had been made at the previous WG meeting the numbers suggested by the Hungarian, Bulgarian and Czech Republic representatives suggested a lower take up. The estimate could be improved by presenting the proposal to a wider range of accession countries and Central European country representatives. A meeting to accomplish this had been proposed (Minute 13.1) but this needed to be augmented by applicants from within the current EU.
Dr Davies is writing to a list of European astronomy societies provided by Dr Dennefield to obtain more quantitative estimates. Dr Davies can supply a list of addresses if useful.
v. A proposed COMET Project Office would not only have a role in administering the allocation of time and liaising with the facilities and community but also in monitoring performance of the scheme.
3.5.5 Size of facility to be included
It was agreed that the scheme should, at the outset, include only those facilities with primary mirrors greater than 2.2m diameter, and might include the ESO 2.2m. Smaller telescopes could be included in a separate proposal dealing with educational use.
3.5.6 Cost basis and Definition of infrastructure
Members agreed to use the Working Group's estimate of the unit cost of telescope time i.e. 6.8MEuro/night for 2-4m telescopes and 2.5MEuros for 1-2m but accepted that these needed to be checked against actual figures. Dr Davies agreed to work with the Directors to prepare a table of actual annual operating costs but noted that getting these to be based upon the same criteria (i.e. inclusive of all staff effort or instrumentation support costs) would be difficult.
Action: Dr Davies to prepare table of facility operating costs.
3.5.7 Members sought clarification upon whether the EU would consider an infrastructure as a single telescope, a suite of telescopes with a common management or a set of telescopes upon a single site. If there was scope for flexibility in the definition then it might be possible to demonstrate the overall percentage take up for the scheme was 20%, when the usage for individual telescopes was greater or less than this present upper limit. Dr Boland said that for VLBI payment was received for every day a telescope was used within the network. The Chairman would seek this clarification.
Action: Chairman to seek clearer definition of infrastructures with respect to astronomy facilities.
3.5.8 Dr Davies agreed to take these comments into account in revising the draft proposal prior to re-circulation.
Action: Dr Davies to circulate new draft for comment and then decide how to best organise the next step.
Dr Davies asked the members for comments on the name/acronym for the proposal, pointing out that ‘COMET’ was simply an idea he had picked without discussion.
Action: All members to comment on the proposed name and suggest alternatives.
4. ASTRONOMY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
4.1 Professor Palous described the current research interests of the Czech astronomical community and the local facilities to which it had access. There was a significant proportion of the community studying stellar and galactic sources, together with solar observations but relatively little extragalactic study. This was probably influenced by the capabilities of the facilities to which astronomers had access. There was a markedly skewed distribution in the ages of professional astronomers in the Czech Republic, with greater numbers aged 25-30 and 50-55. Professor Palous believed that the community would be keen to participate in the proposed COMET scheme and would also be interested in contributing access to its own 2 metre class telescope. The main hurdles to greater access are travel funds, ability to win time through the normal competitive process - in research areas which might not be seen to be the highest priority for 4m time (such as monitoring variable sources) and lack of wider experience amongst younger astronomers.
4(i) PRESENT STATUS AND FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2M TELESCOPE IN ONDREJOV
Professor Koubsky described the current status and instrumentation of the telescope which is used for a wide variety of programmes. It supports both spectroscopy and imaging on 3 focal stations but resources for upgrading the instruments are limited.
5. SUMMARY OF FACILITIES AVAILABLE AND INTERESTS OF THE BULGARIAN COMMUNITY
5.1 Professor Panov described the facilities available to the Bulgarian astronomical community at NAO-Rohzen and at Belogradcic/Belogradchik? Although a range of smaller telescopes are used, with associate instrumentation, the resources for development were extremely limited. He estimated that Bulgaria trained around 3 PhD students in astronomy per year. Science interests, as for the Czech Republic, were wide ranging but mostly related to galactic studies and the solar system.
6. SUMMARY OF FACILITIES AVAILABLE AND
INTERESTS OF THE HUNGARIAN COMMUNITY
6.1 Professor Szabados described the astronomy facilities which the Hungarian Academy of Sciences currently funds. These included a 1m, 60/90cm Schmidt and 50 and 60cm telescopes at Konkoly Observatory, along with small telescopes at 4 other sites. The size of the Hungarian astronomical community was estimated as around 80 astronomers (in a population of 15M). Astronomy was a popular subject choice for students but resources only supported 3-4 PhD students in total. The average age of astronomers was around 50. However, amongst the community there was experience of access to the telescopes on La Palma and the Calar Alto Observatory, together with some good and active collaborations with research groups around Europe. Once again research interests were dominated by stellar and galactic studies, variable sources, time series and solar studies.
6.2 The Working Group welcomed these presentations and the interest and support shown for the proposed scheme. It was clear that, from those countries which were represented, the demand for time would be moderate, there would be a need to provide the means to foster the development of collaborations and training opportunities if applicants were to be successful through peer review. Attention would also need to be given to ensuring staff remained within astronomy in their native countries, possibly through fellowship schemes or through the provision of resources to develop local facilities and the research environment in home countries. Other areas of EU funding should be considered for these.
7. PROGRESS REPORT OF THE 2.3M
ARISTARCHOS TELESCOPE
7.1 Unfortunately, Dr Harflatis was unable to join the meeting in time to give his presentation but the Chairman reported that the telescope was progressing well and to schedule. Instrumentation would include a UK-built camera. The Aristarchos Telescope was expected to operate as a European facility, with access open to all and time could be included within the COMET proposal.
8. UK ROBOTIC TELESCOPE PROJECT
8.1 Although Dr Roche was unable to attend the WG the Chairman reported that over the next 18 months 3 new 'robotic' 2 metre telescopes would be commissioned, one on La Palma operated as a research facility by the Liverpool John Moores University, one in Hawaii and one in Australia focussing upon educational use. These latter two, Faulkes Telescopes, would be available for operation in real-time by schoolchildren and students in the UK (based on the ~12 hour time difference between the UK and the telescopes). Programmes to allow students to exploit the telescopes were being developed by Dr Roche and by the UK National Schools Observatory. There was potential for the development of research programmes which would allow professional astronomers to utilise these facilities in collaboration with students and also for international partnerships between schoolchildren. However, these ideas were not yet developed.
9. STATUS OF ING/CALAR ALTO PLANS
9.1 Dr Gredel reported that options for the co-ordination of instrumentation plans between the medium-sized telescopes, focused on the 4m-class facilities, had been posted on the web for comment from the community. Dr Rutten said that a scheme to share access to instruments was nearing agreement between the ING and TNG. It was expected that observing time proposals could be exchanged in early 2002, in time for allocation of time in the second semester of 2002. Discussions were on-going for a similar scheme with the CFHT. The schemes assumed no exchange of funds. The Chairman welcomed these initiatives, noting that they had the potential to develop into common strategies for instrumentation. They would demonstrate to the EU the potential for collaboration.
10. STATUS OF CCI PROPOSAL
10.1 Dr Mampaso explained that the facilities on La Palma (collectively the ORM) were part of a current EU access scheme, overseen by the scientific co-ordinating committee for the La Palma telescopes (the CCI) and administered by the Instituto Astrofisica de Canarias (IAC). Some 15 different countries owned, or are partners in, the facilities of the ORM, with considerable experience of collaboration. The IAC and CCI were considering options for the medium to longer term development of the ORM, to take best advantage of the excellent site in terms of seeing and number of clear nights available, and the world-class telescopes - including the WHT, TNG and NOT. These will shortly be joined by the IAC's 10m GTC, due to be commissioned there in 2004, with new partners from the US and Mexico.
10.2 Specifically, the IAC and CCI were considering the realisation of a European Northern Observatory (ENO), based upon the ORM. Dr Mampaso emphasised that the future would depend upon agreement between the partners, not upon the wishes of the IAC or Spain. The aim of an ENO would be to foster greater collaboration between the telescopes, including sharing facilities and access. However, it was expected that ENO would not become the owner of the facilities and that resources would be contributed according to the wishes of the partners. A proposal for EU funds would be co-ordinated through the CCI. Dr Mampaso expressed the IAC's wish to co-ordinate with OPTICON and re-emphasised its wishes which were, through an ENO, to ensure strong facilities, broader access and good collaboration and co-ordination.
10.3 Chairman welcomed this positive intent and noted the need to ensure that the success of existing and future facilities was not damaged but enhanced by broadening access and links with other facilities. It was suggested that this might best be achieved through the CCI/IAC proposal being a component within a broader proposal. It was agreed that there was a strong need to work with the partners in the ORM, through the CCI and/or the IAC on a timescale consistent with that of the COMET proposal and that this should lead to a unified proposal, but one which might retain individual priorities. Whatever the approach, it was felt that competing proposals would be damaging to the case for astronomy support overall and would not be in keeping with the EU's desire to see networks developing a common strategic view.
11. Educational Programme
11.1 Although ideas for an educational programme were not discussed in detail at this meeting, it was becoming clear that those aspects relating to the training of students or teachers were more appropriate as part of a separate, but related, proposal. The source of funds, within the EU, for such a scheme would also be different. COMET could include elements relating to the training of young astronomy researchers in the operation and utilisation of the medium-sized telescopes. Dr Dennefeld was working with the Directors to extend and broaden existing funding for training schools, seeking funding in FP5, next February. Other aspects of the educational programme would be developed between meetings by Dr Dennefeld and WG members.
Action: Dr Dennefeld and WG members to discuss ideas for an educational programme and to resubmit proposal for a training school
12. AOB
12.1 There was no other business.
13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
13.1 It was agreed that the date of the next meeting should not be set until the timescale of the EU-decision making process for FP6 was better known. However, it was expected that there would be a meeting of a sub-set of the WG to work up the draft proposal prior to circulation for comment in advance of submission. It was also proposed that there should be a meeting of representatives of the accession countries and those who might be interested in applying for the common pool of telescope time in order to present ideas and gauge interest. This meeting would probably need to take place early in 2002 in order to feed in to the proposal drafting process.
Action: Chairman and Dr Davies to arrange next meetings
13.2 The Chairman extended the Working Groups’ thanks to Dr Auriere and his colleagues at the Observatoire Midi-Pyrenees for their excellent hospitality and support.