13 November 1998
For the period between 1990 and 2020, Canada will have spent
about $100,000,000 on building and operating
the Gemini Observatory. It is imperative that the Canadian astronomical
community achieve the best science and the best graduate student training
from this major national investment. However the weakness of
instrumentation science in Canadian universities may jeopardize
our objectives.
I consider that the university-based capability in optical-ir
astronomy is at risk nowadays with the severe budget restrictions
to which Canadian
universities have been subjected to in the recent years.
For example the small astronomical instrumentation
groups (UBC, U of Alberta, University of Lethbridge,
University of Western Ontario, Université de Montréal,
Université Laval) that were active in several Canadian universities
have disappeared or shrunk well below critical size.
While Gemini has helped greatly in ``rejuvenating'' the
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (HIA)
in recent years (despite the drastic funding cuts there also),
there has been so far little impact in Canadian
universities. Unfortunately,
very few of the remaining groups or individuals have
been strong or competent enough to participe, this even in a
very modest way, in Canadian Gemini work packages, which are being handled
completely - and very successfully - by NRC-HIA. This is
contrary to what happened with the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope
in the late 1970s when some instruments were built in the
universities. HIA tried several
times unsuccessfully to
involve university groups in the past (e.g. for building
the AO system for CFHT). Announcements of opportunity for Gemini instruments
have been circulated to potential university groups, but no
response has been forthcoming. I believe that Canadian
universities do not have at present the capability to tackle
important instrument building projects. Sadly, university
astronomers cannot build the instruments they use on large telescopes!
We need to corrrect this dramatic evolution of the
university astronomical community whose members risk
to become ``passive user'' clients.
The instrumentation science inadequacy in universities must be corrected,
because the strength of astronomy in Canadian universities
is absolutely vital for the competitive scientific use of the Gemini
Telescopes (and other astronomical facilities), and also for
the continuing health of HIA. Also the
participation of universities in the design and building
of major astronomical instruments (like for Gemini) is
essential for the intellectual training the required
future manpower in the challenging areas of space and
ground-based astronomy and related technological areas. The instrumentation
expertise gap in universities may be fatal for our competitiveness:
if one cannot build, one is at risk of not understanding and
not following the technology which is crucial for building forefront
instruments; if one does not build state-of-the-art instruments,
no ``new blood'' will be coming in instrumentation science.
The new blood in both science and engineering comes from universities.
In this proposal,
I show that we must rebuild competitive instrumentation
capability in Canadian universities and I explore a specific
avenue on how to do this for astronomy. Although I address issues related more
specifically to participation in the Gemini Project, my
concerns and proposed solution can be extended to participation
in other large astronomical and space astronomy insruments or facilities.
Nowhere is the need for re-vitalization of instrumentation
science in universities more specifically expressed as in
the views and comments expressed by the external evaluators
of GSC17 during the 1998 Re-allocation exercise by NSERC.
These comments, reproduced below, emphasize the
weakness, the strength and the future directions for the community.
COMMENTS (excerpts by JRR) FROM NSERC REALLOCATION REVIEWERS
``Canadian scientists have been in the forefront of these studies and will address central questions with the new Gemini telescopes, including the evolution of the structure of our Universe.''
``The specific proposals for the use of reallocated funds are `Space, Astrophysics and Relativity Project Grants' and a `Gemini/Satellites Science Fund'. These are both excellent ideas for cooperative projects which will make the most of new equipment turning on within the next few years... The Gemini/Satellite Science Fund would be very important for the proper use of the new facilities which are about to come on line. It is essential that operating funds be made available for Canadians to use these new facilities in which Canada has made substantial capital investments. Funding for the science made possible by the Gemini telescopes and the satellite measurements will enable Canadian scientists to take the next steps in all of the important scientific questions discussed in the vision statement.'' (Reviewer A)
``The best argument for enhancing support of astronomical research is that such support will be necessary to exploit fully the observational opportunities that will be coming on line during the next few years. The Gemini telescopes, for example, will be immensely powerful and will offer unprecedented image quality, but will require more effort to use than existing telescopes. Greater effort will be required to plan observations and also to extract information, both because of the greater complexity of the instrumentation and the higher information content that it offers, and because of problems of dealing with variable point spread functions provided by adaptive optics.... The second proposed enhancement is to support Gemini and satellite science, and again such enhancement will be required if Canadian astronomers are to reap the full benefit of their investment in the construction phase of these projects. Simply transferring grant funds from old projects to new ones will not be sufficient. Rather, the acquisition and reduction of data from the new groundbased facilities and satellites are going to be more expensive for the reasons mentioned above in connection with the Gemini telescopes.'' (Reviewer B)
``Astrophysics nowadays is a science which requires in almost all of its aspects the synthesis of space- and ground-based observations. Canada has a substantial involvement in the Gemini Telescopes project, which will provide excellent opportunities for optical and infrared observations over the whole sky. It would be extremely short-sighted to diminish the opportunities opened up by Gemini by stinting the marginal funds required for data analysis and interpretation.'' (Reviewer C)
``... The driver here is that many of us believe that the study of star formation needs/is ready for a major breakthrough and that such a breakthrough is likely to be driven by new, high angular resolution observations in the radio and IR. Canada is well positioned in the IR part of the spectrum with the development of adaptive optics for Gemini.'' (Reviewer E)
The Gemini Observatory will devote to on-going instrumentation
and facility developement US$3 M yr-1. This corresponds
for Canada's 15% share of Gemini to C$650,000 yr-1.
Furthermore, only HIA/NRC has, at present, the appropriate resource to take
Gemini instrumentation contracts or other international
packages. This will - and should - continue to be so in large
international endeavours, but I strongly believe
that an overall more distributed effort with
involvement of strong university groups is needed; this is also
the wish of HIA whose vitality depends on well trained students and
on the quality of intellectual
and scientific input from a strong and competent community.
We can gain enormously from a greater synergy between HIA/NRC
and university instrumentation science groups.
BUT........ due to severe cuts at NSERC and in universities since the late
eighties, university-based instrumentation groups have been drastically
reduced. How can we re-build strong instrumentation groups capable of playing
active intellectual roles in the design of future astronomical instruments,
and with the required technological and managerial know-how,
to take at least sub-contracts in large instruments
for international facilities?
As part of the Reallocation exercise, NSERC will be injecting
annually more money into Grant Selection Committee 17, reaching
a total of $579,000 yr-1 at the end of this four years cycle,
``to take advantage of the Gemini Telescopes and of available
satellites''. Kate Wilson of NSERC has informed me that
it was not yet clear in what form this money could be
applied for, but it is obvious that the community must
be willing and ready to prepare a strong case.
I have also been informed by Kate Wilson and Nigel
Lloyd of NSERC, that to support important Gemini activities
in the universities, astronomers may apply for a
Major Facility Access grant. My proposal for a university-based
Gemini Scientist is a first step in this direction.
--> WE MUST BUILT UP THE STRONGEST SCIENTIFIC CASE TO
ACCESS AND USE NSERC ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR GEMINI
AND SATELLITES!
However, I believe that NSERC programs, though they can and will contribute in most helpful ways, are insufficient to reach our objectives. We must create a university based entity with the critical mass and expertise in instrumentation science. New ideas and ventures must exploit some of the newer avenues of funding, such as special programs of regional developement, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the partnerships with institutions and industries through the University-Industry programs at NSERC and NRC.
Technological developments offer fresh and exciting possibilities to
astronomy. However, with the increasing complexity of modern
technology, astronomers find that in order to realise these
possibilities in successful instruments they need to have
at hand the services of teams of engineers, technicians
and craftsmen. Astronomy usually seeks to use technology
already developed for other applications, but occasionally
the development of new devices is required. In both cases,
the technological problems posed are fascinating and challenging
for the scientist or the engineer, and up to the highest standards
for the quality of training of students in applied
physics and engineering. To resolve the issues above and
to match our science and training objectives, I propose the creation
of a university-based Canadian Centre for Experimental Astrophysics (CCEA).
The CCEA will be project oriented and have as part of its
mission the training of high-quality
personnel in advanced technology instrumentation
for astronomy and space sciences. It will concentrate on design,
development and manufacture of astronomical equipment and
systems that are not commercially available. The aim will be,
in working jointly with HIA/NRC scientists,
to produce facility-class common user instruments to be used
on university telescopes, and
on national or international facilities such as the Gemini Telescopes.
The CCEA must be associated with a strong observational group. The development of good instruments and analytical software happens at institutions with strong observational programs with astronomers eager to use the equipement and feed-back to the builders. Exchanges and visits by researchers, students, and engineers between HIA/NRC, the CCEA, international facilities partners, and industries should be an appropriate mean to keep the CCEA at the forefront of instrumentation science in astronomy.
I propose that the main area of expertise to be developed at
the CCEA be
near and mid infrared astronomy, - imagery, spectroscopy and
polarimetry. Infrared array technology in the near and mid infrared
is evolving very rapidly, and substantial development,
evaluation and application work are still needed. There
is a particular need for exploring various multiplexing
options in spectroscopy to better exploit the array
dimension perpendicular to the dispersion. Infrared optimized
telescopes and instruments, equipped with modest adaptive
optics, can allow imaging through the 1-20 microns
atmospheric
windows with an unprecedented spatial resolution from the ground.
New scientific windows are opened to study the formation of
stars and planetary systems, to explore the universe hidden
by the ubiquitous dust and to access a wealth of new spectral features.
Many upcoming space missions (e.g. SIRTF, SOFIA, Next Generation
Space Telescope, FIRST) are IR oriented, so the group may get
non-Gemini work. A specialized approach might increase
chances of getting collaborative work on non-Canadian instruments.
In having the CCEA specialising in infrared astronomy and technology, I recognize the need to complement the well-established expertise of HIA in adaptive optics, ultraviolet and optical instrumentation, and I wish to build from the already existing infrared expertise in a few Canadian universities. It is expected the CCEA will create and maintain expecially close links with HIA. They ought to merge their complementary strengths and members, particularly scientists must be able to move easily between them. Coop-students program could be used to further the link with industry. A university-based centre offers on the same spot a wide range of expertise (e.g. from electronics and mechanics engineers, physicists, software people, vacuum and cryogenics services, etc.), while HIA/NRC has an even wider range of expertise or technical support, and can provide exceptional shop and testing facilities.
The creation of a Canadian Centre for Experimental Astrophysics will
require new people and new expertise.
I have based the staffing requirement of the CCEA (Table 1) on requirements
for a critical mass to participate jointly (or separately for small
packages) with HIA/NRC in large international instrumentation projects.
What I have in mind is a group size which would have the
capability to construct a USD $1 M instrument. An example
is the University of Florida Group of Mid-Infrared astronomy,
under Charles Telesco, who is building the Mid-infrared camera MIRI
for the Cerro Pachon Gemini Telescope. The group of seven
researchers and senior engineers at University
of Florida corresponds to the size of the team I propose in
the budget of Table 1.
In a joint HIA-University effort over a limited period (e.g. 2-3 years), NRC could provide two NRC funded engineers who will assist the CCEA at the beginning. These engineers would spend 2 to 3 years helping the centre to start the instrumentation effort at the CCEA, to train the appropriate engineer staff, and to give the necessary managerial expertise.
I present in Table 1 an annual budget for the CCEA which
would represent the normal
operating budget for the ``permanent'' staff. It is expected
that contract money could increase this budget due
to additional hiring and staffing at critical time of contracts;
Andy Woodsworth of HIA/NRC estimates that this could represent
an annual income of the order of $150 K.
Note that none of presumed funding sources have made any commitment.
In the TBD source, I include some contract money, but I expect
most of TBD funding to come from sources yet to be identified.
Furthermore, there are benefits of around 20% on top of
the salaries, and several of my figures are probably
underestimate of the real costs.
At present, while searching for new people to involve
in the operations of Gemini, in the building of its instruments,
and in the various advisory bodies, one realizes quickly how
limited the pool of competent and available persons is.
Therefore there is a need to explore new initiatives to
have any chance to increase our numbers and competence.
While doing so, one must also be aware that traditional
sources of funding such as NSERC and NRC are almost frozen
for the near future.
We must position ourselves to tap other sources of funding
for starting new initiatives and
for the hiring of new young competent university staff. The recent
increase of the NSERC budget raises some hope. The budget for the upcoming 1999 NSERC-MFA competition has been tentatively set
at $ 5.4M, up $ 2M from what was previously budgeted. This amount may be
revised in November 1998 in light of the demand on the program. The
additional $ 2M (the total increase is $ 4M) will be used for support of
important new facilities, which may arise in non-competition years.
Further details on the mechanism for this will be released later.
Another important issue for universities is
the question of indirect costs. For example,
Gemini does not pay ``indirect costs'' or overheads!
International funding is provided for
~2/3 of the real cost of an instrument...
Consequently how can we fund the total real costs of building Gemini
instruments or parts of instruments (or other large astronomical instruments) in
Canadian universities?
| Task | Amount | Source |
| 2 University scientists | $200,000 | University |
| 1 software & system engineer | $100,000 | TBD |
| 3 engineers | $200,000 | TBD |
| 3 Postdoctoral fellows | $120,000 | NSERC |
| 3 technicians | $150,000 | NSERC |
| 4 graduate students | $60,000 | NSERC |
| Travel | $50,000 | NSERC |
| Operation, small equipments, communication, computers, tools | $120,000 | TBD |
| Total | $1,000,000 | All sources |
| |
Jean-René Roy
<jrroy@phy.ulaval.ca> 13 November 1998 |
Job Opportunity in Calgary
Canadian Gemini Science Steering Committee
Tables of Contents