USIC Splinter Session on Optical Interferometry in the Next Decade M. J. Creech-Eakman (NMT/MROI) on...

USIC Splinter Session on Optical Interferometry in the Next Decade

M. J. Creech-Eakman (NMT/MROI)

on behalf of USIC

Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 USIC Splinter Session 2

Primary Mission: A consortium of US-based optical/infrared interferometer groups focused on how we might best position the (ground-based) field for a positive outcome in the next Decadal Review.

And a Secondary Mission: Work with other organizations and institutions to develop

funding opportunities in order to provide access to the US optical interferometry observatories.

Define a role for current interferometers…towards building the next generation interferometers.

Collaborate on both technology development and science.http://usic.wikispaces.com/


Who is on the USIC Board?

CHARA H. McAlister T. ten Brummelaar

ISI C. Townes

MROI M. Creech-Eakman E. Bakker

NPOI T. Armstrong D. Hutter

PTI/KI/NExScI R. Akeson

KI S. Ragland

LBTI P. Hinz

NOAO (observing) S. Ridgway

NASA-Goddard (observing) D. Leisawitz


Who else participates in the USIC? Working group (6) members: 34 individuals

including USIC board members Tucson Workshop, Nov 2006 Splinter Sessions at previous AAS and SPIE

meetings: Over 100 individuals on mailing list


Astro2010 Decadal Structure

Executive Committee

Survey Committee

Subcommittee onScience

Subcommittee onState of the Profession

Subcommittee on Programs

Science Frontiers Panels•Planetary System and Star Formation

•Stars and Stellar Evolution

•The Galactic Neighborhood

•Galaxies across Cosmic Time

•Cosmology and Fundamental Physics

Study Groups•Computation, Simulation & Data

•Infrastructure

•Private and International Partnerships

•Education and Public Outreach

•Astronomy and Public Policy

Programmatic Prioritization Panels•Radio, Millimeter, Submillimeter from Ground

•Optical and IR Astronomy from Ground

•Electromagnetic Observations from Space

•Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation

Oversight Line

Output Feed


Charges to Committees/Panels Five Science Frontiers Panels (SFPs):

“…charged with recommending an integrated scientific observational and theoretical research program in their assigned research areas. … The reports from the SFPs will call out up to four central questions that are ripe for answering and one general area where there is unusual discovery potential. The SFPs will write panel reports containing detailed science cases. While observational and theoretical capabilities for realizing the science should be addressed, Panel advocacy of specific new activities will be avoided. “


Charges continued…

Four Programmatic Prioritization Panels (PPPs): “…charged with recommending to the Survey

Committee a prioritized, balanced, and integrated research program which includes a rank ordering of research activities and a balanced technology development program. …The recommendations from the PPPs will be informed by the SFPs’ recommendations.”


Charges continued…

Study Groups (SGs): “…will assist the Subcommittee on State of the

Profession by gathering current information on infrastructure, broadly defined. The SGs will be a set of community activities, operating under terms of reference provided by the State of the Profession subcommittee. The SGs will prepare factual reports for submission to the State of the Profession Subcommittee with data and information presented mostly in tabular and graphical form. “


Preliminary Timeline

Late Dec – Call for NoI from research activities submitting to PPP. Deadline is Jan 14 for NoI.

Late Dec – Call for Science White Papers. Window is Feb 9-15.

Q1-09 – Policy papers call. Q1-09 – PPP papers call. Q2-09 – Invitations for presentations to PPP. June, 09 – PPP workshops at AAS meeting. Survey Committee Incremental Meetings – Dec 5-6, 08;

Jan 9-10, 09; May 11-12, 09 (Town Hall); Sept, 09 Final Survey Committee meetings are Oct-Dec, 2009.


Astro2010 Committees/Membership Chair – Blandford EO – Hillenbrand Subcommittee on

Science: Haynes (VC), Bildsten,

Carlstrom, Harrison, Heckman, Lunine, Toomre, Tremaine

Subcommittee on State of the Profession: Huchra (VC), Elmegreen,

Frieman, Kennicutt, McCammon, de Grasse Tyson

Subcommittee on Programs: Rieke (VC), Battel, Max,

Ritz, Turner, Vanden Bout, Young

NRC Staff: Shapero, Smith, Moloney,

Sponberg, Reimer, Dewhurst, Lang, Chamberlain, Knutsen, McFall, Dolan


Where can USIC community contribute?

Executive Committee

Survey Committee

Subcommittee onScience

Subcommittee onState of the Profession

Subcommittee on Programs

Science Frontiers Panels•Planetary System and Star Formation

•Stars and Stellar Evolution

•The Galactic Neighborhood

•Galaxies across Cosmic Time

•Cosmology and Fundamental Physics

Study Groups•Computation, Simulation & Data

•Infrastructure

•Private and International Partnerships

•Education and Public Outreach

•Astronomy and Public Policy

Programmatic Prioritization Panels•Radio, Millimeter, Submillimeter from Ground

•Optical and IR Astronomy from Ground

•Electromagnetic Observations from Space

•Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation

Already formed

Places where we can provide input


The USIC’s process:

We have assembled 6 working groups to address needs and contributions of ground-based optical/IR interferometric community

Each group had preliminary discussions in Nov/Dec and developed an abstract and outline of their deliberations.

Final paper (to Programmatic Panel) to be developed and submitted by timeline outlined by Decadal Committee.


White Paper Working Groups and Leads Science Opportunities for

Interferometry in the Upcoming Decade: Millan-Gabet

Operational Funding Requirements and Funding Models for Array Facilities: Akeson

Science-driven Enhancements of Array Facilities: Armstrong

US Community Demand for Interferometry: Wizinowich

Models for Community Access to Private Facilities: Creech-Eakman

Roadmap for the Future Development of Interferometry: Mozurkewich


Findings and Recommendations(Presented for Review and Discussion)


I: Science Opportunities for Interferometry in the Upcoming Decade Millan-Gabet, Haniff, Monnier, Mourard, Muterspaugh, Pott,

Stencel, Tycner, Woillez

Addressed a series of 6 questions related to: The Decadal strategy in the Tucson Workshop report Weaknesses/strengths of current community Most interesting science areas today in opt/IR int. Most important enhancements needed Most active/productive science areas in next decade Most effective way to get non-interferometrists to use

optical interferometers in their research


Summary of “Science” Results Related to Tucson report:

Bring current facilities to full capability Emphasize community access and use by non-

experts Demonstrate community-wide support for existing

and future facilities Weaknesses/Strengths

W: restricted access, user-friendliness and data reduction tools, too many competing teams, inadequate basic funding, no common-user facility approach, dominated by technical interests

S: good talent which is flexible and evolves quickly, effective publicizing of successes, this process


Summary of “Science” Results cont Best science:

Spans the gamut: disks, planet formation, evolved stars, binaries, brown dwarfs, AGN and narrow-angle astrometry applied to several problems

Needed enhancements: Facilities underfunded/understaffed, proof of

OVLA concepts, more automation, user-friendly observing prep. and data-reduction tools, restructure/re-emphasize/defund certain facilities


Most active/interesting science coming up: Hard to predict….dependent on capabilities Exoplanets and proto-planetary disk dynamics General relativity tests Follow the European vision

Involving other astronomers: Publishing good papers Developing user friendly planning/reduction tools Developing a “National Interferometry Center”

Summary of “Science” Results cont


II. Operational Funding Requirements andFunding Models for Array Facilities

Akeson, Bakker, ten Brummelaar, Creech-Eakman, McAlister, Ridgway, Wizinowich

The optical/infrared interferometry community should advocate for a source of steady funding for the current and under-development arrays as this is lacking in the programs offered at the NSF and NASA.

This funding would allow continued scientific investigations and improvements of the existing facilities.

Additionally, a longer-term operational funding model would allow many of the existing arrays to support users from the community. Possible models for such a program are discussed, in particular using existing programs at NSF as examples.


Operational Funding Specifics Describes a range of facilities available in next

decade and how PI and facility-class provide different opportunities to the community

Discusses funding models Gaps in current paradigm for O/IR interferometry Possible other models – TSIP, URO-style Describe community access that will be provided

Determined via a request to current/near-term facilities to describe funding needs and observing time that could be provided in return


III. Science-driven Enhancements of Array FacilitiesArmstrong, Berger, Elias, Hummel, Leisawitz, Perrin, Ragland,

Woillez, Young

Considered enhancements to current array facilities based on science areas in which contributions are expected to be made in the upcoming decade. stellar surface imaging, polarimetry, circumstellar

disks, fundamental parameters from binaries, extra-solar planets from either binary studies or astrometry


Summary of Science-driven Enhancements Increased sensitivity

AO on CHARA/MROI/NPOI 1.8m to take advantage of visual wavelengths with multi-r0

Increased backend capabilities Higher dynamic range (500-1000) Higher spectral resolution (R~1000-2000; R~15000-30000) IR and visual operations Polarization capabilities Group-delay tracking

Improved UV Coverage Quasi-redundant spacing for stellar surface imaging Wide-range of UV spacings Long-baselines


IV. US-Community Demand for Interferometry

Wizinowich, van Belle, Creech-Eakman, Danchi, Hutter, McAlister, Ridgway (w/ contributions from Hale, Monnier, Parvin, ten Brummelaar and McMahon)

Produces a table of existing facilities and capabilities Lists uniqueness of optical interferometry compared to any

other techniques available Discusses community access to current/near-term facilities Outlines the current demand by:

Science performed, nights of observing, ALTAIR survey responses, VLTI demand and US use

Discusses expected future demand Comparisons to development of radio interferometry and AO

Suggests conducting a survey like NOAO surveys


US Community Demand Statistics CHARA – 269 nights in 2008 among 52 proposals and

65 investigators; oversubscription of about 2.4:1 NPOI – 2/3 of nights are dedicated to wide-angle

astrometry and are oversubscribed 2:1 KI – NASA/NOAO oversubscription for 2009A was 3.1:1 10% of ALTAIR survey respondents identified NIR

interferometry as important for their near-term research VLTI time in 4 years: 194 MIDI from 72 PIs and 141

AMBER from 66 PIs; PIs in 15 different countries; 6 US-based PIs; 91 total publications from 54 different first authors


V. Models for Community Access to Private Interferometry FacilitiesCreech-Eakman, Lane, Hyrenevych, Mourard, McAlister, Ridgway,

Townes (Wizinowich)

Goals of permitting/encouraging community access increasing user community, gain access to public funding,

plan for next facility, proposing something worthy of Decadal

Models for access collaboration, invitation, DDT, private contributions, public

funding, user-support personnel, archival access Types of considerations needed to facilitate access

training, housing, data planning and reduction tools, TACs, funding support


VI. Roadmap for the Future Development of Interferometry

Mozurkewich, Berger, ten Brummelaar, Buscher, Eisner, Muterspaugh, Pott, Woillez

Made some assumptions about why interferometry is important and what we might want to build in the future to develop the roadmap

Developed a straw-man design as a WAG Discussed major avenues of technology

development needed to make this happen


Roadmap continued

Assumptions about future facility: Imaging facility which is less-expensive than a

space-based facility Promise of interferometry goes beyond resolution

of an equivalent large aperture and includes in particular a high level of calibration advantage

A strong science case will be needed with a likely break-point somewhere in the 15-17th mag range


Roadmap continued Straw-man WAG Design (could serve as a starting

point for costing) 10-30 3-4m diameter movable telescopes with AO and

LGS; with total collecting area comparable to Keck observatory

Vacuum feed Delay Lines – technology TBD Tip-Tilt at backend to take out residuals Beam combination in non-redundant rows of apertures with

orthogonal spectral dispersion including photometric channels – the remainder (R, rates, etc) TBD

As wide a wavelength range as possible Potentially adding a dual-feed mode


Roadmap continued

Technology development in next decade Sensitivity is most important design goal, with this

in mind, in decreasing order of importance: Good AO/LGS on large, portable telescopes Beam combination – beyond what has been done yet Other considerations: high-reflectivity, low-dispersion

mirrors, better detectors, low-loss single-mode fibers, delay lines


Overall Common Recommendations/Findings We do not believe it is time to advocate for a new

facility for this Decadal We are mostly understaffed and not currently

delivering our fully advertised capabilities We need a common funding supply for operational

support and enhancements We need better/more-common preparation/data-

reduction tools We need to provide more community access and

actively build the user community


Overall Common Recommendations/Findings continued We may wish to advocate for a “National

Interferometry Center” in the US. The need for optical/IR interferometry will increase

over the coming decade There will be continued science breakthroughs as

interferometers increase sensitivity and efficiency There is a need for continued technology

development and a desire to advocate for a new ground-based facility in the following Decadal


Timed Next Steps for the USIC Respond to Decadal Programmatic NoI – Jan 14 Submit at least one Science Paper** - Feb 15 Submit Programmatic White Paper on Ground-

Based Opt/IR Interferometry - TBD Potentially launch on-line survey for more

community feedback (?) Potentially try to address the Decadal panel in

person in Q2, 09 (?) Potentially host a Town Hall meeting (?)


Potential Ways to Submit Science White Papers – for Discussion1. Submit one all-encompassing paper on

O/IR int. capabilities to all Science Panels (7 pages)

2. Submit a focused paper to each relevant panel (potentially 28 pages)

3. Submit one or two focused papers, plus advocate for a few paragraphs within papers already being submitted (14 pages plus a few dozen paragraphs)


General Questions for Consideration: How should we approach the submission of

Science White Papers given the timeline? Have we discussed all the elements that are

likely needed for the Programmatic paper? Are there areas that would be best left-out of

the Programmatic paper?


Community Feedback

Please identify yourself, speak up, and try to keep your comments to a few minutes so everyone can have a chance to speak.


What can you the individual do now? If you are already involved, remain engaged; if you

are not involved, please consider helping us. Speak to Decadal members. Publish your interferometric results. Participate/host

a town hall meeting. Add interferometry results to your talks/courses. Advocate to your colleagues. Attend conferences outside of traditional “Interferometry” groups.

If you would like to join a USIC working group to help with writing any sections, contact me right after this meeting.

Date post:	14-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	frederick-moore
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

USIC Splinter Session on Optical Interferometry in the Next Decade M. J. Creech-Eakman (NMT/MROI) on...

Documents