next up previous
Next: Competitive Site and Timescale: Up: No Title Previous: Engineering and Costs

The Shifting Landscape of Canadian Astronomy

Leadership and excellence in science demand access to research facilities second to none.

Canada became a leader in astronomy when the world largest telescope, the 1.8m instrument of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory was inaugurated in 1918. Twenty years later came the 1.8m of the University of Toronto David Dunlap Observatory. Canada then fully owned two of the four largest telescopes in the world. On these Victoria and Toronto poles was built the very strong reputation of our country in a field rich in discoveries which fascinate the public and greatly enhance the prestige and technological capability of the nation. In 1974, Canada joined France and Hawaii to build the 3.6-m CFH Telescope which again propelled Canadian astronomy to the forefront, because that instrument was one of the largest and outperformed other 4m-class telescopes.

Now, a quarter of a century later, the frontiers of astronomy are being charted by 8m-class telescopes, sixteen being already in operation or under development. Through our 13.2% share in the two Gemini telescopes Canadian astronomers are guaranteed about 82 nights per year on the largest astronomical facilities. This should be compared to 730 nights on the largest facilities in the 40's and 50's and 155 nights in the 80's and 90's.

In the past, Canadian astronomers competed very successfully for time on several open 4m-class telescopes (KPNO, MMT, CTIO, WHT, AAT) as well as the Hubble Space Telescope and radio telescopes such as the VLA. We thereby increased our access to the most powerful telescopes without contributing to the capital and operating costs of the facilities. The 8m-class telescopes are not open in this same way. Concommittant with the internationalization of large astronomical facilities is the rule that access requires proportionate financial participation. This new regime simply reflects the enormous intellectual and technical resources brought to bear in the design and construction of these facilities, and also the fact that the economic activity engendered strengthens the overall technology infrastructure of the participants.

The plain truth is that Canada now lags our more aggressive peers in Europe and the USA in its per capita investment in modern optical/IR astronomical facilities.

The current situation calls into question the relevance of Canada's contributions to optical/IR world astronomy and for participation in future projects. This is why, when Canadian partnership in Gemini was being considered in 1990, the Canadian Astronomical Society urged NRC to secure funding for at least a 25% share of the project and for the maintenance of the CFH Telescope as a unique support facility. Unfortunately, the budgetary situation at that time made this impossible. The community had to be content with a contribution which now translates into a 13.2% share of the observing time. In addition, the Gemini telescopes themselves had to sacrifice their important wide-field capabilities in order to satisfy budgetary constraints. The true price of these cost-saving measures has now become apparent.

Canada still has the intellectual and technological resources to remain a leader in optical/IR astronomy, and thereby stimulate public pride in her scientific accomplishments. No other field of science has such a compelling appeal to inspire youth toward the pursuit of scientific careers. However, to retain our leadership role requires immediate investments and steadfast determination. The explosive growth of Astronomical facilities has engendered a world-wide competition for skilled technologists and leading scientists. The strong Canadian presence in these areas is well known and Canada remains vulnerable to a significant loss of its best and brightest in the absence of competitive opportunity to develop, and work with, top-flight facilities.. Hence, inaction or delay carry the potential to erode our capabilities for significant future impact.



 
next up previous
Next: Competitive Site and Timescale: Up: No Title Previous: Engineering and Costs
Ray Carlberg
1999-03-11