Users Committee Recommendations How did we do in 2005 ?

NOAO Users Committee

5 October 2005

Recommendation 1.1

The Users Committee should be merged with the US Gemini Science Advisory Committee, or at least should have a representative who sits on that committee and can serve as an informed liaison.

Two dual members appointed

• Nicole Vogt

• Robin Ciardullo

Meetings back to back with a joint session

Recommendation 1.2The Users Committee needs access to more information from the users themselves in order to address how well their needs are being met by NOAO. Answers from observers to the following questions would be especially helpful: Were your observing needs met? Could observations be executed more efficiently or successfully? Is there anything NOAO could be doing to better facilitate your scientific goals?

• directly implemented for TSIP observers

• final reports summarized by KPNO, CTIO Directors

User feedback should be solicited at stages along scientific process, e.g.• On NOAO Proposal Web Form NOAO & committee needs to hear from from would-be proposers who explored but abandoned possibility of using an NOAO facility, due to lack of instrumentation, perceived inefficiency of facilities or operations, or other reasons.

• On NOAO Post-observing run form add comment section sent directly to Users Committee. Particularly important for users of other telescopes in US system, ie Gemini & TSIP facilities. Currently, Users Committee has virtually no info about whether the community is satisfied with TSIP

arrangements. • On feedback form on NOAO home page, or at least on the Users Committee web site. Done 10/1/05• At AAS meetings Solicitation for input to Users Committee could be done at NOAO booth or special session. • By email Input could be solicited from observatory users or, better yet, all proposers via mass email.

Recommendation 1.4NOAO should provide Users Committee with statistics on instrument requests, not only on their rate of use. This will help committee better gauge community demand for particular facilities. This goes not only for KPNO/CTIO instruments, but also for Gemini and TSIP facilities, & especially for Keck.

These statistics are already available to Users Committee as well as to community-at-large; they appear in the June & December Newsletters (after each Call for Proposals cycle). They are broken down by telescope as well as each individual instrument.

Recommendation 2.1The Users Committee strongly encourages that NOAO adopt more straightforward and accessible metrics for gauging the efficiency of the system, such as the fraction of clear evening hours spent integrating on the sky for proposed science observations. A way to make the ``completion rates" meaningful would then be to scale them by their total requested integration times divided by the total clear observing hours in the semester.

Observing Efficiency at Gemini(Excerpts from a presentation to the

AOC-G/GSC)

Phil Puxley, Inger Jorgensen

GSC, October 2005

Shutter Open Efficiency• Since August 2004 we have recorded the ‘shutter open’ efficiency for

every science night at Gemini• Definition:

– “Sum of all science exposures plus calibrations obtained between evening and morning nautical twilight divided by the usable time available”

• Derivation details:– Science and calibration times obtained from data frames

• GMOS-S and GMOS-N: exptime header keyword• GNIRS, NIRI and Phoenix: exptime times coadds• T-ReCS: utend – utstart for dataset, divided by 2 to give on-target time including chop and nod

overheads• Michelle: obstime keyword, divided by 2 to give on-target time including chop and nod overheads

– Usable time obtained from hours between nautical twilights less time lost due to weather and technical faults

– Also recorded relevant ancillary data e.g. weather conditions, observing mode etc

Individual Instruments

• Peak (>80%) and average (60-70%) nightly efficiencies are comparable for all instruments– GMOS tends to have slightly higher average and peak efficiency

because average exposures are longer (not seen with Phoenix because visitor instrument is not fully integrated with OCS?)

Preliminary Results

• Consistent with efficiencies from other 8-10m – ESO/VLT (2003 Annual Report): 73% FORS1/2; 63% ISAAC; 42%

NACO– Keck “best” values (2003B newsletter): 85% DEIMOS, ESI, LRIS;

75% NIRSPEC; 63% NIRC, NIRC-2; 22% LWS

±10%

Preliminary Conclusions (I)• High efficiency is obtained when weather conditions are good or

stable (not necessarily good)– Easier to plan and hold to the plan– Max efficiencies for long-duration observations on few fields

• No significant differences in maximum efficiency of operation for most instruments– Any differences likely due to characteristics of observations (shorter/longer),

number of nights in sample, sensitivity to weather

• GMOS average efficiencies higher than near-IR instruments– Same for GMOS-N and GMOS-S– Longer average exposures

• When weather is less stable, typically 10% lower– For very unstable nights (not shown), average efficiency is 10% lower still

Shutter Open Efficiency –Preliminary Conclusions (II)

• Efficiency on multi-instrument nights is less than on single instrument nights– Multi-instrument stable weather night is similar to

single instrument less stable night (i.e. ~10% ‘penalty’)

• Queue nights appear to be 10-20% more efficient than classical nights

• Nights when that started with major technical lost time are quite inefficient, even if the weather is good/stable

• Can start to see evidence for “other factors”

Recommendation 2.2The Users Committee recommends improving the Gemini web site and keeping it upto date. This is particularly important for information related to Phase II.This will go a long way towards easing some of the complaints about using the telescope.

NGSC accepts this recommendation for an improved Gemini Web site.

Recommendation 2.3The Users Committee recognizes need to oversubscribe queue, to make sure there are always objects available. However, too large an oversubscription rate will cause observers to ``drop out'', & skip the painful Phase II process. It will also cause the users to question

the Gemini TAC process, since being ``allocated time'' will no longer be equated with ``getting data''. The Users Committee recommends Gemini look into making Phase II forms easier, & increase probability that users with approved Gemini programs get data.

See http://www.noao.edu/ussac/

Recommendation 2.4One of the best ways of getting data out of a queue scheduled telescope is to exploit ``soft spots'' in the queue. It would be helpful if NOAO and/or the TAC could provide some commentary about where soft spots in Gemini queue are. e.g. should users be proposing for 4-m class science that can be done with Gemini in bad weather or non-optimal conditions?

•NGSC has advertised this in Newsletter articles.

•NGSC will again broadcast need for Gemini programs that make use of non-optimal conditions.

Recommendation 2.5• better way of presenting Gemini to the community is to provide help and give accurate information via the facility's web pages... • special workshops to engage the Gemini community are certainly not needed.

NGSC will prioritize web page improvements significantly higher than Gemini-related workshops.

Recommendation 2.6

Queue scheduling is expensive, and the 85%/15% split between classical and queue is costly. Users should be educated that classical observing is a possibility.

NGSC has encouraged classical observing by the US community at Gemini.

See http://www.noao.edu/ussac/

Recommendation 2.7• quickest way to speed up rate of Gemini publications is to minimize time from data acquisition to the end of data reduction. Data acquired by Gemini should always be given to the end user in a timely fashion.• user must have proper data reduction tools. Users Committee recommends NOAO increase effort to make data reduction pipelines quick, easy to use, & painless. Cookbooks are useful here, as well.

See http://www.noao.edu/ussac/

•Gemini paper productivity

•Gemini Data Reduction

Recommendation 2.8• The Users Committee strongly endorses the idea of organizing a system by whichinterested parties could “eavesdrop" on observing with the Gemini telescopes.• would also provide great opportunity for public outreach and education.

• NGSC will pursue scientifically beneficial eavesdropping before it devotes scarce resources to public outreach eavesdropping.

• Success requires developing procedures & policies supported by both National Gemini Offices & Gemini Observatory.

Recommendation 2.9• Very few large telescopes scheduled in a way suitable for time-domain astronomy, either because individual proposals receive little time, or because of instrument scheduling constraints. •Since the Gemini telescopes are operated in queue mode they are well-positioned to exploit this potentially lucrative niche.

There are numerous time-domain programs in Gemini queues. They are working profitably in queue mode, e.g.

•optical and infrared spectroscopy of supernovae,

•radial velocity monitoring of pre-main-sequence binaries to derive masses,

•spectroscopy of cataclysmic variables,

•eclipsing binaries in M31,

•spectroscopy of gamma ray bursts.

Recommendation 3.1• NOAO should collect information on the user experience with TSIP telescopes.This can be done with a post observing run questionnaire, similar to that given to observers after

KPNO/CTIO runs. • If users are consistently dissatisfied with their experience with a TSIP telescope, or if data quality of a facility is poor, NOAO should consider dropping facility from TSIP system.

The data are available at http://www.noao.edu/dir/usercom/2005/2005-TSIP.

Recommendation 4.1

Information on the number of nights available to community on telescopes of CTIO and KPNO should be supplemented with data showing how many nights users can expect to be devoted to imaging (optical and IR) and spectroscopy (low, medium, & high resolution).

• In general there are no a priori restrictions of this kind.

• Block scheduling results in some a posteriori adjustments.

Recommendation 4.2• When asking Users Committee to evaluate plans to retire existing instruments or start a new initiative, a detailed budget impact analysis should be provided. This would allow the Committee to distinguish between a plan that seeks to retire an instrument to make way for an otherwise impossible new initiative, versus a plan to retire an instrument as a sacrificial lamb

• A detailed budget analysis is also necessary for proper consideration of new initiatives.

• The Observatories Council conducts this sort of analysis, and it is straightforward to present these considerations to the Users

Recommendation 4.3Given the pressures on NOAO funding, it is probably most practical to build instruments in partnerships with universities/institutions and,in exchange for resources, allow the institution a reasonable amount of access to the telescope. However, a new mechanism for the procurement of instrument proposals needs to be implemented. Rather than offering a limited window for proposals and jumping at the first viable (ie fundable)project that comes along, NOAO should consider having an open ended call for ideas. This would allow NOAO to occasionally "say no" and wait for another proposal that better serves the needs of the user community, perhaps as identified by a workshop on new instruments for medium-sized telescopes.

Publish a schedule of planned AOs in the Long Range Plan

Recommendation 4.4The Users Committee recommends that important instruments not be retired,until their successors are capable of performing same (highly ranked) science.

• In the context of the System this should be a feasible policy.

• The NSF’s Senior Review of AST Facilities is also relevant.

• NOAO has requested that the Users Committee be consulted on the recommendations of the Senior Review

Recommendation 4.5• The User Committee urges NOAO to not only consider the science DECam will do, but science that will not get done due to loss of southern hemisphere/fall season• NOAO should attempt to find some creative solutions (perhaps obtaining increased access to SOAR during the fall season) to make up for loss of access

Noted.

Recommendation 4.6

• If NOAO proceeds with the project, the Users Committee recommends that it take special care to see that the project stays to schedule. • If the DECam schedule slips, NOAO should be prepared to quickly ``pull the plug."

The Memorandum of Agreement will include the normal decision points at PDR and CDR.

Recommendation 4.7• If DEC project is approved, hold an HDF-like workshop • allow users to suggest additional filters, observing modes, etc.• Committee recommends include U-band filter • wider audience will

– bring in more suggestions – give survey broader scientific impact.

Accepted.

Recommendation 4.8

If NEWFIRM is not cloned and is shared between KPNO and CTIO, it should be moved North/South no more often than once per year.

Accepted.

Recommendation 5.1The Committee feels that a fixed 5-year window for NOAO Survey Programs is too long. Such an interval is out of step with the typical 3-year funding cycle of the NSF and of postdoctoral appointments. Consequently, it is

likely that the resources available to a survey team will change significantly during the course of the program. This can adversely affect the ability of the team to complete the data reduction and

deliver the promised dataset. The Committee recommends reducing period of survey programs to 3 years.

Accepted.

Recommendation 5.2• NOAO staff should inform their users (eg via a web page) and the TAC about the details of completed or ongoing astronomical surveys throughout the world, including providing an estimate of when these datasets might become available (eg ``no sooner than 2008'') to the

international community. • Survey TAC can then make use of this info when evaluating new NOAO proposals.

We are leaving the Survey TAC to do its own research in this area.

We’ll brief the TAC with some URLs of known surveys

Recommendation 5.3Since data reduction is a major bottleneck in delivering results of a survey to the community, the Users Committee recommends, when possible, NOAO staff provide data pipelines for approved survey programs. This will ensure the community has future and timely access to the data.

Mosaic pipelines are nearly complete

NEWFIRM will be delivered with its pipeline

Recommendation 5.4The User Committee recommends that team members applying for time for new surveys be required to inform the TAC about the status of any previous NOAO surveys with which they were/are involved.

Agreed.

The question about past allocations of time will be modified on the survey proposal form to remove the 2 year limit for previous surveys.

Recommendations 6.1, .2• NOAO should continue its investment in and leadership of the DPP and the NVO. • The observatory should consider promoting itself as an international ``one-stop shopping place" for pipeline reductions.• NOAO should seek additional funding to support development of DPP & analysis of NOAO data archived in NVO or other DPP products.

Funding was received this year from the cyber infrastructure program.

Recommendation 7.1• The Users Committee recommends adding a question to the NOAO proposal form.•̀ `Assuming you are allocated time and successfully collect the required data, what resources in the way of funding and/or manpower do you have to support data processing, data analysis, and publication of the results?”• “Explicitly mention any external funding (e.g.,from NSF) you may currently have to support your work."

The question was added to the form for 2005B.

The TAC debated the utility of the question.