1. DRAFT (12/18/00) AURA’s road map to future 30m - 100m groundbased observatories - entering the “ era of the Giants ” in partnership The New Initiatives Office - a partnership between Gemini, NOAO and our Communities DRAFT – first thoughts (12/18/00) abbreviated version

2. DRAFT (12/18/00) AURA’s “New Initiative Office” - a New Initiative for Groundbased Astronomy Global context Science Drivers (highly abbreviated in this version) Organizing for success in partnership Focusing on Innovation

3. DRAFT (12/18/00) Global context 2000 2010 NGST NGST ALMA SIM ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade VLA-upgrade Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI Keck I&II UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Gemini N&S HET LBT Phase A: of what? OWL 2015 2008 20002010 CELT and maybe GSMT… LSST? The decade of adaptive optics NIO timeline The era of the “giants”

4. DRAFT (12/18/00) How we will be competitive from the ground The “ Next Generation ” Space Telescope (NGST) will probably launch 2006 - 2010 – an 6m - 8m telescope in space NGST will be extremely competitive for: – deep infrared imaging, – spectroscopy at wavelengths longer than 3 microns Groundbased telescopes can still compete in the optical and near-infrared – moderate to high resolution spectroscopy Groundbased facilities can also exploit large baselines – high angular resolution observations

5. DRAFT (12/18/00) “Deconstructing High z Galaxies” Integral field observations of a z = 1.355 irregular HDF galaxy (Ellis et al) “Starformation histories of physically distinct components apparently vary - dynamical data is essential” -- this is very hard on 8m – 10m telescopes

6. DRAFT (12/18/00) Going beyond Gemini Jupiter Solar System @ 10 pc 500 mas Gilmozzi et al (1998) Log 10 F  (  Jansky)  m) 10  t = 10,000s R = 1800 Gemini x 30 Models for 1 M J Planets at 10 pc from Burrows et al 1997

7. DRAFT (12/18/00) 1 R 1 AU 100 AU 0.1 pc 10 pc Accretion Disks Protoplanetary Disks Planets Molecular Cloud Cores Jets/HH GMC Mol. Outflows Stellar Clusters 1 - 10 milli- arcseconds Observations at z = 2 - 5 AGN Galactic observations out to 1kpc at 10 mas resolution 10 AU Spectroscopy Imaging  100 pc Velocity dispersion R= 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 Flux Going beyond 0.1 arcsecond astronomy requires resolution and sensitivity

8. DRAFT (12/18/00) New Frontiers: Galaxies Dense sampling over large fields of view: Depth: to reach z=0.5-10 for dense sampling Capabilities Large aperture Telescope Large FOV (>20’) O/IR MOS at R~5000

9. DRAFT (12/18/00) Why a wide field Sensitivity + FOV* Large Scale Structure 100Mpc (5 O x5 O ), 27AB mag (L* z=9), dense sampling NBT1.5 yr Gemini50 yr NGST140 yr * uniqueness cf. ESO 100m OWL

10. DRAFT (12/18/00) The NIO – organizing for success in partnership Steering Committee: Pres. AURA Dir. Gemini Dir. NOAO Another (S.Strom) GeminiNOAO NIO Office PM: J. Oschmann PS: (TBD) NIO staff (allocated FTE’s) Resources NIO Advisory Committee Working Groups Study Contracts External resources AURA

11. DRAFT (12/18/00) Baseline Approach - ambitious at the outset 0.9  m - 3.8  m Tech. challengeScience challenge Minimize risk -- if at all possible Focus on technologies that have the potential to produce the most innovative results Multi-conjugate AO Smart structures Optical materials and support approaches Analytical analysis of wind-buffeting “Cheap” enclosures 1 arcmin - 3 arcmin Tech. challengeScience challenge Tech. challenge Diffraction limited telescope D ~ 30m - 100m Operating wavelengths Corrected Field of View Uncorrected FOV 10 - 20 arcmins

12. DRAFT (12/18/00) New Initiative’s Office, a partnership between Gemini, NOAO and our Communities Working Groups – Science – Systems – Adaptive Optics – Optics – Structures and Controls – Sites – Instrumentation – Management Issues – Corrected vs. uncorrected FOV – Error Budget, Complexity – Strehl ratio vs. FOV vs. No. lasers – Cost of aspheric vs. spherical M1 – Wind buffeting analysis, the role of smart structures – Mauna Kea vs. Chajnantor – Narrow vs. Wide field, detectors – National vs. International support

13. DRAFT (12/18/00) Possible Concept A “radio telescope” married to active and adaptive optics Mirror-to-cell actuators Integrated mirror/cell segment Large stroke actuators Mirror support truss with smart structure elements/active damping as needed Three levels of figure control: Each mirror segment Each mirror segment is controlled within an individual cell is controlled within an individual cell Each cell is then controlled with respect to the primary mirror support structure Each cell is then controlled with respect to the primary mirror support structure The support structure may have to use “smart structure” technology to maintain sufficient shape and/or damping for slewing/tracking The support structure may have to use “smart structure” technology to maintain sufficient shape and/or damping for slewing/tracking

14. DRAFT (12/18/00) A proposed approach to achieving the image quality science goals LGSs provide full S.C. Deformable M2 : First stage MCAO, wide field seeing improvement and M1 shape control 10-20’ Field at 0.2-0.3” seeing 1-2’ field fed to the MCAO module Wide and narrow field science multiplexing M2: rather slow, large stroke DM to compensate ground layer and telescope figure, or to use as single DM at >3  m. (~20000 act) Dedicated, small field (1-2’) MCAO system (~4-6DMs). Focal plane Active primary (0.1Hz)?

15. DRAFT (12/18/00) How do we cost a 30 - 100m? Risk assessment examples 1 of 3 Adaptive OpticsAdaptive Optics –multiple-conjugate AO needs to be demonstrated –requires a laser solution –deformable mirror technology needs to expanded for 50m ( x 10 - 20 more actuators How do we make “light-weight”, 2 - 4m aspheric segment mounted in its own active cell and can we afford hundreds of them?How do we make “light-weight”, 2 - 4m aspheric segment mounted in its own active cell and can we afford hundreds of them? How much dynamic range do we need to control cell- segment to cell-segment alignment ?How much dynamic range do we need to control cell- segment to cell-segment alignment ?  Will “smart”, and/or active damping systems have to be used telescope  evaluate by analysis and test.  Composites or Steel?

16. DRAFT (12/18/00) An Enclosure for 50m -- “ how big ?” Risk assessment examples 2 of 3 Restrict observing range to airmasses < 2.0Restrict observing range to airmasses < 2.0 30 degrees 75m “Astro-dome” approach“Astro-dome” approach Heretical proposition #1 - excavateHeretical proposition #1 - excavate –significantly lowers enclosure cost –further shields telescope from wind –reliant on AO to correct boundary layer 150m 75m Heretical proposition #2 - perhaps the wind characteristics of a site are now more important than the seeing characteristicsHeretical proposition #2 - perhaps the wind characteristics of a site are now more important than the seeing characteristics

17. DRAFT (12/18/00) Risk assessment examples 3 of 3  Telescope Structure and wind loading  We need to characterize this loading in a way that is relatively easy to use in finite element analysis. This is easy, but mathematically intensive. Basically for each node that gets a wind force, a full vector of force cross spectra is generated, therefore the force matrix is a full matrix with an order equal to the number of forces (10’s of thousands).  Enclosure concept (do we need one)?  What concept can we afford both in terms of dollars/euros and environmental impact (note Heretical Proposition #2) èPROBABLE CONCLUSION: WE NEED A TECHNOLOGY TEST-BED  a 20m - 30m “new technology telescope”  this is probably to only way to establish a credible cost for a 50m - 100m diffraction limited optical/IR groundbased telescope

18. DRAFT (12/18/00) New Initiative’s Office, a partnership between Gemini, NOAO and our Communities Working Groups – Science – Systems – Adaptive Optics – Optics – Structures and Controls – Sites – Instrumentation – Management Preliminary reports in draft form, community meetings and first design studies underway - Strategy Document by June 2001

19. DRAFT (12/18/00)