From:   carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca
Subject: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 8, 2009 12:56:08 PM PDT (CA)
To:   Patrick.Cote at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, pritchet at uvic.ca, kvenn at uvic.ca, waerbeke at phas.ubc.ca, and 56 moreÉ

[this is a highly incomplete list. Please forward to those that might be interested.]

There are a number of Canadian telescope issues that merit discussion, at least via email and perhaps in person if there is interest. The LRP2010 will take up some of the larger issues, but a bit of local organization ahead of time is useful

1) CFHT:
i) There has been some on and off discussion about using CFHT Megaprime to undertake a U band survey to complement/gain access to the PANSTARSS survey. One estimate is that it would require ~200 nights (CFHTLS was 500 nights). U requires absolutely dark sky and good seeing so there need to be other programs to fully use the telescope. French astronomers are interested. Are we? The PS1 consortium needs to also enter the discussion. In my view this would potentially be a good way to keep CFHT engaged in general wide field imaging for many science interests. This could get underway as a PI survey, but would benefit from a broad collaboration.
ii) in 2012 Hypersuprimecam arrives on Subaru and eclipses CFHT Megaprime. One idea is IMAKA GLAO imaging. Another that merits consideration is a wide field spectrograph. BigBOSS is being discussed for KPNO/CTIO and HERMES for AAO. The science cases are much of WFMOS (which has been terminated by Gemini, but has a chance to live on through Japanese funds). Both Canadian and French astronomers have an interest in retaining a (reduced share) interest in CFHT to reduce costs but undertake unique "small telescope" science. In the absence of ideas, both Canada and France will likely need to withdraw as the TMT/EELT era gets underway.


2) ARCTIC telescope
Site surveying on Ellesmere Island (Steinbring etal) has established that it is ~60% clear  in the long arctic night. This is only suitable for a highly specialized  telescope, but would be interesting for thermal IR imaging particularly for time variable objects (GRBs, planets, etc). Is there wider interest in developing a plan?

3) A TMT note
The TMT Board plans to select its preferred site at the July 20-21 meeting. There should be an announcement shortly after.

-------------

From:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca
Subject: Re: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 9, 2009 6:13:23 AM PDT (CA)
To:   carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca
Cc:   Patrick.Cote at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, pritchet at uvic.ca, and 57 moreÉ


Ray - I think you meant "optical telescopes"!

I would add the question of the Canadian future for Gemini (are we in forever?).

And of course there are also issues with facilities at a wider range of wavelengths.  One near-term problem is that the tri-partite agreement for
JCMT currently runs out in 2012, which only gives ~2 years for SCUBA-2 surveys.  To explot Canadian investment in SCUBA-2 we probably need to consider another ~2 years of JCMT operations (which of course is not in the current plan, and in some contexts is tied to ALMA, even although CFHT and Gemini are not usually tied with TMT).

Then we have SKA, etc.

Douglas

------------

From:   carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca
Subject: Re: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 9, 2009 7:23:55 AM PDT (CA)
To:   John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Cc:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca, carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca, Patrick.Cote at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, pritchet at uvic.ca, and 57 moreÉ

The LRP/MTR plan for CFHT as I understand it is that funding will be withdrawn when it is needed for some better facility (presumably TMT). Currently CFHT is looking at a couple of new instruments, SPIRou and IMAKA, which will need to be judged for risk/return and cost. Certainly IMAKA is not obviously affordable within the current partnership at a time when both Canada and France see the TMT/EELT as priorities for spending. There is a world-wide effort to discuss possibilities to specialize 4m class telescopes such that they are scientitifically exciting but cheaper to operate. Some of them may fall out of national funding and become the responsibility of scientific consortia (e.g. SDSS, panstarss and the LSST model). IMAKA may be the answer, but wide field spectroscopy is of very wide interest.  In any case, at the moment we have CFHT and should make the best possible use of it and its absolutely exceptional site.

As a few have noted, Gemini is a puzzle. It is perhaps worth noting that its "niche" of IR optimized good imaging in a small field is precisely the area where TMT/EELT will excel.

--------------

From:   mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca
Subject: RE: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 9, 2009 1:43:45 PM PDT (CA)
To:   John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Cc:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca, carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca, Patrick.Cote at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, pritchet at uvic.ca, and 56 moreÉ

Hi -
Indeed, I would urge those of you interested in this discussion to look at OIRAC's most recent report:
http://www.casca.ca/Links/Committee_Reports/oirac_May09.pdf

It is the role of OIRAC to be looking at precisely these issues within a wider context.  Furthermore my understanding is that RAC and OIRAC are to be merged to form a ground-based astronomy committee which will be able to take an even broader view as Douglas suggests.  This will be important for preparation of the next LRP, which is where our various opinions on these options may carry some weight.  But I think it is OIRAC/RAC's role to synthesise our various opinions on these issues given all available information.  It is difficult to have a sensible conversation with only part of the story.

Michael

--------------

From:   harris at physics.mcmaster.ca
Subject: RE: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 9, 2009 2:54:36 PM PDT (CA)
To:   mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca
Cc:   John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, dscott at phas.ubc.ca, carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca, and 57 moreÉ


Hi all,

Agreed with what Mike and John have mentioned.
Context is critical for evaluating anything new that comes up.
The OIRAC report from May is a well constructed overview of the
global optical/IR situation and is only a short step away
from inclusion in a new LRP.  So those new project ideas
are interesting on their own ground but what else can one say.

For the LOT issue I'm keenly interested to hear
what the TMT site selection recommendation will be.
I am recently back from spending a month at ESO/Garching
during which they held a very active week-long conference on designs
and science drivers for EELT.  They are continuing to be
forward-looking and obviously mean business.  The idea of joining
them has a lot of attractions, though (as OIRAC details)
the mix of plusses and minuses is different than with TMT.
One thing worth considering is that it may not make a lot
of long-term sense to be 'second to none' in an organization
that turns out to be dysfunctional, and whatever our concerns
about ESO are, I wouldn't call them dysfunctional.

I also had recent conversations with a senior Australian
astronomer who views Gemini as a case study in mismanagement.
Not the universal opinion, I know, but it hasn't satisfied
all partners.

Bill

-------------

From:   ray.carlberg at gmail.com
Subject: Re: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 9, 2009 6:45:49 PM PDT (CA)
To:   harris at physics.mcmaster.ca
Cc:   mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca, John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, dscott at phas.ubc.ca, carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca, and 57 moreÉ
Reply-To:   carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca

So far we have heard that
1) we need TMT
2) we need the current or increased access to Gemini
3) we need to remain involved in CFHT, and
4) JCMT needs to stay open even as ALMA operating costs ramp up
So far this is sort-of working, but there may be a reckoning to come.

The significant change in the conversation is that ESO has a fair degree of support.

--------------

From:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca
Subject: RE: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 10, 2009 5:51:15 AM PDT (CA)
To:   harris at physics.mcmaster.ca
Cc:   mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca, John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, and 58 moreÉ

This may not be the forum for discussing these issues, but what is?

To quote from Bill Harris:
"The OIRAC report from May is a well constructed overview of the
global optical/IR situation and is only a short step away
from inclusion in a new LRP."

How can this be a short-step away from inclusion in the LRP when (as far as I'm concerned) there has been so little discussion?

I read the OIRAC report.  It focusses mostly on TMT(/ELT).  It states that Gemini "is currently Canada's flagship optical facility".  And the CFHT paragraph is only 7 lines long.

My own view is that a recommendation to increase our involvement in Gemini is completely absurd, and I would be dismayed to see that in the LRP.

Douglas

--------------

From:   pudritz at physics.mcmaster.ca
Subject: RE: Canadian Telescopes
Date: July 10, 2009 11:21:47 AM PDT (CA)
To:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca
Cc:   harris at physics.mcmaster.ca, mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca, John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, and 57 moreÉ

Hi,

The LRP 2000 Panel, as noted in its documents, took *all* reports (eg. CASCA committee reports of all kinds) - as advisory only.  Every report represents just a segment of the community and its needs.  The LRP is charged to do much more - to craft a global plan with all parts in balance, and all parts critically assessed in the broadest and most imaginative astrophysical context.  In the experience of LRP 2000, the need to arrive at this broad perspective overturned the recommendations of the more specialized reports in some cases. A deep plan can only begin to emerge after many months of intense discussion in the community; extensive community interaction with the LRP panel through reports, town halls and face to face meetings; and much deep and considered thought by the panel itself.

I am sure that LRP 2010 experience will be no different.  I am glad to see that community discussion - which is critically important, has started.

Best,
Ralph

---------------

From:   ray.carlberg at gmail.com
Subject: Re: Canadian Telescopes
Date: August 6, 2009 5:59:16 PM PDT (CA)
To:   pudritz at physics.mcmaster.ca
Cc:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca, harris at physics.mcmaster.ca, mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca, and 58 moreÉ

[please forward to interested people]
We had a useful discussion today at DAO about possibilities for CFHT renewal.  The primary consideration is that the CFHT site is the best known site anywhere (including Mauna Kea) so the primary asset is becoming the site itself, not the telescope, etc.
The main ideas were
o IMAKA (reduced image size wide field imaging) on existing CFHT
   (competes with the same concept on larger telescopes)
o wide-field multi-object spectroscopy (WFMOS) that has high/low resolution modes (could image as well).
   new ~8m telescope. (very) rough cost $100M. Some substantial interest. Probably could attract new partners.
   Also, could take advantage of IMAKA type GLAO at some stage. The somewhat surprising cost is because WFMOS $70M was ~1/2 Subaru modifications. This type of wfmos could be used 100% of the time, but if set up on a naismyth would allow new/experimental instruments on the other platform.
o mention of the VLOT idea, but that is sidelined by TMT.

The tentative idea was to have another meeting in about a month with a focussed discussion.

-----------------

From:   raymond.carlberg at utoronto.ca
Subject: RE: Canadian Telescopes
Date: August 9, 2009 6:47:05 AM PDT (CA)
To:   raymond.carlberg at utoronto.ca
Cc:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca, harris at physics.mcmaster.ca, mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca, and 59 moreÉ

[please forward to interested people]
A few follow-up items on CFHT redevelopment
--I have contacted a few people in France about these CFHT ideas. There is strong interest in exploring significant CFHT alternatives. The wide-field spectroscopy idea resonates well. They are undertaking their five year planning exercise with reports due in Oct.
--Those around in the 1990's will recall the Richer report and the wide-field 8m idea. So, these ideas are not completely new. However, the science case is very much stronger with a clearer understanding of how a CFHT upgrade could fit together with other new observatories. 
--An important item that was raised is funding of science. PI investigations are funded through the existing mechanisms, but to be effective in a large survey requires committed scientific resources, that is, a science centre, that interacts very closely with the data acquisition, archive and scientific investigators. 
--a better organized meeting summary is given below.

ANOTHER MEETING? 
--idea of having a followup meeting, say at HIA (or other west coast), say sometime the week of Sept 14. Video/telecom would be available for those that want to participate remotely. The agenda could range beyond just CFHT. 


1. CFHT site is well-known to be an unique asset: seeing, wide field AO, northern latitude, close to TMT. We need to exploit that in the new LRP and not lose it. 

2. Telescope needs upgrading: primary mirror; dome ventilation, structure, larger optics, redesign for wide field.  Need to have set of roughly costed options, schedules, and returns in this list.

3. Need to have science plan arising from above that is unique and exciting to attract partners. WFMOS seems promising opportunity. Sell on 1 or 2 main science goals, but be clear to astronomers that these are not the only ones.

4. Need to fit with overall LRP plan for TMT, etc in science capability and budget.
Thus Canadian cost in the region of $10-40m. 

5. Need to do studies, develop consensus, find potential partners before LRP.
Timing is important and urgent. Form group; work with CFHT SAC and board, CASCA committees?



[please forward to interested people]
A few follow-up items on CFHT redevelopment
--I have contacted a few people in France about these CFHT ideas. There is strong interest in exploring significant CFHT alternatives. The wide-field spectroscopy idea resonates well. They are undertaking their five year planning exercise with reports due in Oct.
--Those around in the 1990's will recall the Richer report and the wide-field 8m idea. So, these ideas are not completely new. However, the science case is very much stronger with a clearer understanding of how a CFHT upgrade could fit together with other new observatories. 
--An important item that was raised is funding of science. PI investigations are funded through the existing mechanisms, but to be effective in a large survey requires committed scientific resources, that is, a science centre, that interacts very closely with the data acquisition, archive and scientific investigators. 
--a better organized meeting summary is given below.

ANOTHER MEETING? 
--idea of having a followup meeting, say at HIA (or other west coast), say sometime the week of Sept 14. Video/telecom would be available for those that want to participate remotely. The agenda could range beyond just CFHT. 


1. CFHT site is well-known to be an unique asset: seeing, wide field AO, northern latitude, close to TMT. We need to exploit that in the new LRP and not lose it. 

2. Telescope needs upgrading: primary mirror; dome ventilation, structure, larger optics, redesign for wide field.  Need to have set of roughly costed options, schedules, and returns in this list.

3. Need to have science plan arising from above that is unique and exciting to attract partners. WFMOS seems promising opportunity. Sell on 1 or 2 main science goals, but be clear to astronomers that these are not the only ones.

4. Need to fit with overall LRP plan for TMT, etc in science capability and budget.
Thus Canadian cost in the region of $10-40m. 

5. Need to do studies, develop consensus, find potential partners before LRP.
Timing is important and urgent. Form group; work with CFHT SAC and board, CASCA committees?


------------

From:   raymond.carlberg at utoronto.ca
Subject: RE: Canadian Telescopes
Date: August 9, 2009 6:45:45 PM PDT (CA)
To:   sawicki at ap.smu.ca
Cc:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca, harris at physics.mcmaster.ca, mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca, John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, and 57 moreÉ

Definitely yes to getting the facts out and discussing options. The LRP will come to its own conclusions but these ideas should be helpful for them. Mike Balogh (former OIRAC chair) suggests that this discussion be widened to the CASCA exploder, which I will do once there is a bit more planning.

Racine is continuing and refining his analysis of the new DIMM data. He writes: 
"The seeing at the CFHT site may be the very best available on the planet. That should have a decisive impact on the future use of that site. It is regrettable that the CFH telescope itself, with its current 0.89Ó median image quality, is unable to take advantage of its site."
?
Placed on a uniform scale Racine finds...
Site 	FWHM ( Ó ) 	 
CFHT 	0.55 	 
Cerro Tolonchar 	0.58 	 
Cerro Tolar 	0.61 	 
Cerro Armazones 	0.62 	 
Mauna Kea 13N 	0.71 	 
San Pedro Martir 	0.73 	 
Cerro Tololo 	0.76 	 
Palomar 	0.94 	

----------------

From:   sawicki at ap.smu.ca
Subject: Re: Canadian Telescopes
Date: August 9, 2009 6:33:18 PM PDT (CA)
To:   raymond.carlberg at utoronto.ca
Cc:   dscott at phas.ubc.ca, harris at physics.mcmaster.ca, mbalogh at uwaterloo.ca, John.Hutchings at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, and 57 moreÉ

Hi Ray,

I agree that it's very important to look at the future of CFHT or the CFHT site in the JWST/TMT era...   Do you envisage the meeting and discussions you propose as a way to formulate a plan that would then be put forward for broader consideration in the context of the upcoming LRP?

Marcin

----------------

From:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Subject: [Casca-members] Sept 15 CFHT future/ground based telescope discussion at HIA
Date: August 16, 2009 5:21:28 PM PDT (CA)
To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Reply-To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca

On Tuesday, Sept 15 afternoon there will be a discussion of options for future development of CFHT at HIA, which will be available via video/telecom.  This is an informal meeting with a goal of coming up with good scientific ideas in which CFHT, in some way, could play a dominant role.
 
Why now? Although our own LRP is not yet formally underway, it will surely welcome ideas on how CFHT can best contribute to the future of Canadian astronomy.  The aperture of CFHT, at about 3.6m, is not at the international forefront anymore. However, ongoing site testing finds that CFHT is likely to occupy the single best image quality site known on the planet. Hence, the site itself is becoming the primary asset.  The design of CFHT, with a Òclosed upÓ dome, with a mirror sitting in the deep well of a mirror cell and surrounded by massive structural tubes of an equatorial mount significantly degrades the realized imagesÑother, larger, telescopes on Mauna Kea are routinely giving better images.  Modest instrument upgrades alone will not allow CFHT to play a dominant role in the future.
 
One interesting idea under study is to install a GLAO system which could give images as good as 0.3Ó over a nearly 1 degree field. Of course such a system could also be installed on the larger telescopes.  Another possibility of wide interest is to consider replacing CFHT with a wide-field 8m with a large multi-object spectrograph. A very rough cost estimate is about $100M.  Although the ill-fated Gemini/Subaru WFMOS had an estimated cost of some $70M, it should be noted that about ? of that was for modifications of Subaru.  Such an idea is of interest to a very wide range of astronomers (high dispersion stellar spectroscopy being done in bright time and galaxies in dark time) which would mix a few major surveys with PI time.  Such a venture has a chance of attracting new participants that could help share the cost.
 
Clearly all of this takes place in the context of TMT becoming our headlining forefront facility . We need to understand how Gemini and CFHT might fit together in such a plan.  The challenge should not be underestimated. Operating agreements for essentially all of our offshore telescopes need to be renewed (CFHT, Gemini, JCMT, ALMA and upcoming TMT).  This discussion is a chance to discuss ideas for optimal uses of what we can/must maintain beyond our forefront facilities:  ALMA, JWST and TMT.
 
Why at HIA? There are many aspects of this discussion that require instrumentation science, engineering consideration and some sense of likely cost. That advice is available at HIA allowing on the spot refinement of ideas.
 
This is early noticeÑmore details on the meeting will follow.
 

------------------

From:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Subject: [Casca-members] Note from the HIA Director General
Date: August 20, 2009 1:12:48 PM PDT (CA)
To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Cc:   Gerald.Schieven at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Reply-To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca

Dear colleagues

JCMT users are advised that NRC-HIA intends to withdraw its support for 
the telescope effective on March 31, 2012; i.e., effectively at the end 
of observing semester 2011B.

This planned withdrawal is consistent with the recommendation of the 
Mid-term Review Panel for the Long Range Plan and reflects the ramp-up 
of ALMA operations support required of NRC-HIA and the anticipated 
completion of ALMA construction in 2012. The withdrawal date permits 
approximately three years of extended JCMT operations.

The JCMT Agreement requires that two years notice of intent to withdraw 
be given to the other partners and this formal step has not yet been 
taken. In light of the continuing uncertainties related to the 
deployment of SCUBA-2 and its eventual performance on the sky, the 
precise withdrawal date remains subject to discussion with various JCMT 
stakeholders. Every effort will be made to ensure that scientific 
benefits are realized from the substantial investment that the Canadian 
community has made in the SCUBA-2 project.

Greg Fahlman
Director General Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics

--------------

From:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Subject: [Casca-members] CFHT Future
Date: September 15, 2009 9:44:50 AM PDT (CA)
To:   Casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Reply-To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca

The CFHT Future
R. Racine, September 14, 2009
 
The one unique asset CFHT partners enjoy is occupying the best-seeing site in the world. 
 
The median natural delivered image quality (DIQ) over an arbitrarily large field-of-view at the focus of a perfect telescope at the CFHT site would be 0.45Ó fwhm at 500 nm and 0.35Ó fwhm at 750 nm.
 
In all other respects (aperture size, field size, clear sky fraction, opto-mechanical quality and agility, MIR performance, etc.) some of their competitors are or will soon be much better equipped, on the ground or in space. A non-competitive ÒnationalÓ facility is of no interest.
 
Any future astronomical use of the CFHT site must take full advantage of t uniqueness.
This is, in fact, a condition for site allocation on Mauna Kea.
 
The current CFHT regretfully falls short of that goal by a factor of ~1.8 in DIQ or of ~3.3 in science per unit time. The causes of that shortcoming have been known and characterized for 30 years (Racine 1984, Racine et al. 1991). SAC-recommended and Board-supported efforts to eliminate them have been modest and have had limited success. The median 500 nm MegaCam DIQ has gone from 0.69Ó in 2005 to 0.80Ó in 2008 (Salmon et al. 2009). For Subaru, that figure is 0.64Ó (Miyashita et al. 2004).
 
Wide-field, high resolution (WFHR) spectro-imaging would be a perfect scientific activity at the CFHT site. This is indeed the science driver of the current ÔIMAKA project. But the ÔIMAKA GLAO approach alone is insufficient (Racine 2009). Its benefit will come almost totally from the compensation of the optical turbulence generated in and by the dome and of the telescope opto mechanical imperfections. Priority should be given to preventing these diseases rather than to applying  technologically exciting band-aids on the damages they cause. GLAO, or MCAO, can then be implemented to do even better.
 
How the natural DIQ performance of the CFHT can be made to approach the full potential of the site is an issue that needs to be examined in details. Engineering, schedule and costs are important. So is competition from Subaru, LSST et al. But a dedicated WFHR facility at the site would remain competitive for a long time. That facility need not use the general purpose telescope that the current CFHT is. Before partnership in VLOT/TMT became the LRP OIR priority, the option of a wide-field 8-m was seriously considered. It may not be too late in the life of the CFHT to make a WFHR ÒngÓ CFHT  as good as the CFHT should long have been. 
 
 
References
Racine, R. (1984),"Astronomical Seeing on Mauna Kea and at the Canada-France-Hawai'i TelescopeÈ Proc. IAU Coll. no.79, E.S.O. Garching.
Racine, R., Salmon, D., Cowley, D., and Sovka, J. (1991) "Mirror, Dome and Natural Seeing at the CFHT", PASP, 103, 1020
Racine, R. (2009) ÒSteps toward ÔIMAKAÓ, Report to the ÔIMAKA Working Group, CFHT Corp. June 8, 2009.
Miyashita, A., Takato, N., Usada, T. et al. 2004, SPIE 5489, 207
Salmon, D., Cuillandre, J-C,  Barrick, G., Thomas, J., Ho, K. Matsushige, G., Benedict, T. and Racine, R. (2009) PASP 121 (in press)

------------

From:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Subject: [Casca-members] CFHT+ futures video meeting Monday Sept 14, 10amPDT/1pmEDT
Date: August 26, 2009 7:09:41 AM PDT (CA)
To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Reply-To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca

from Ray Carlberg
 
The main purpose of this informal meeting is to give Canadian astronomers a chance to discuss ideas where CFHT should be going over the next decade. The meeting is not a formal planning session as part of our upcoming LRP2 or endorsed by the Canadian agency for CFHT. On the other hand,  it is a chance to have a scientific discussion which if compelling ideas arise are likely to be useful in planning. The meeting  is an outcome  of a set of emails which indicated that there was considerable interest in having such a meeting to gather thoughts and advertizing the meeting on the casca exploder.  
 
The context is the existing LRP/MTR which recognizes that as our priorities have shifted to new more powerful facilities that older less powerful facilities cannot have the same priority. However, over the last decade  SDSS and CFHT have demonstrated that smaller facilities, if wisely instrumented and given a focussed use can satisfy the needs of many users and have an impact that rivals the large telescopes and even space missions. In the case of SDSS it now has active collaborators from most astronomical nations and users from essentially everywhere, including Canadians.
 
In previous discussions the following ideas have come out
-CFHT is at the single best seeing site known, even superior to others on Mauna Kea. Underscoring that the site, more  than the telescope is (and perhaps always has been) the most valuable asset.
-CFHT is the one observatory that we can really influence in its future direction.
-CFHTÕs 3.6m aperture in the 30m era is likely  to be comparable to a 2m telescope of the current era. Furthermore the currently realized image quality is becoming less than other MK observatories.
 
Clearly CFHT (and other Canadian facilities) need to have a plan to prosper in a world that will have such powerful facilities as TMT/E-ELT, ALMA and JWST  and will need to live with budget constraints . The paths forward centre around expensive instruments/telescope upgrades that can be of wide interest. Over the past 15 years or so three or four broad ideas have been discussed:
-improvements of the dome to take the realized seeing of 0.9" or so to the site seeing of 0.5" or so.
-new instruments (currently IMAKA, a GLAO system with a requirement of 0.3"  over a 1 degree field)
-a wide field 8m in the dome (now, with a WFMOS type spectrograph). This is of interest elsewhere.
-a VLOT (which is now realized through the TMT project which is under active discussion for funding and should not be perturbed in any way at all. The LRP/MTR has made very clear that our priority is TMT.)
 
What's new? ALMA/JWST/TMT  are close to becoming a reality for Canadians.  All of those are fairly "narrow field" instruments, which suggests that the future of CFHT should be in a fairly complementary "wide field" approach.  Exactly what?
 
To discuss ideas there will be a videocon at 10am PDT/1pm EDT on Monday, Sept 14.
we should have video available through some combination of UVic/HIA/UBC and Toronto IP numbers.  Netmeeting and skype sometimes work acceptably. 
 
from Ray Carlberg
 
--------------

From:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Subject: [Casca-members] summary of CFHT future discussion
Date: September 16, 2009 5:41:14 PM PDT (CA)
To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Reply-To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca

Brief Summary of the CFHT Discussion Meeting
From: Ray Carlberg [corrections and further comments welcomed]

Connected (at some time)

1.       Victoria
2.       HIA
3.       UBC
4.       Waterloo
5.       Toronto
6.       QueenÕs
7.       Montreal
8.       Laval
9.       Carnegie DTM
10.   CFHT HQ (Derrick Salmon and others)
11.   Gemini  (Dennis Crabtree)
12.   Definitely others, but donÕt want to give names without being sure

The first comment is that although this video/telecon was a bit choppy due to first-time technical complications it looks like it is an effective means to have a national discussion.  The classical phone connection was probably the most effective and reliable. Although it took awhile to get going, by the end, speakers were offering insightful comments on a wide range of issues.

The minimal conclusion is that there are very strong feelings in Canada about CFHT.

The context of the meeting is clearly set in a message from Racine, which has been reordered somewhat below.  ÒThe one unique asset CFHT partners enjoy is occupying the best-seeing site in the world.  In all other respects (aperture size, field size, clear sky fraction, opto-mechanical quality and agility, MIR performance, etc.) some of CFHTÕs competitors are or will soon be much better equipped, on the ground or in space. A non-competitive ÒnationalÓ facility is of no interest.  The median natural delivered image quality (DIQ) over an arbitrarily large field-of-view at the focus of a perfect telescope at the CFHT site would be 0.45Ó fwhm at 500 nm and 0.35Ó fwhm at 750 nm.  Any future astronomical use of the CFHT site must take full advantage of this uniqueness.

High quality, wide field imaging remains a very strong interest in Canada.  The facts, as far as they are known, are that opportunities for Canadians are:

á         The CFHT IMAKA project is developing a conceptual design with a goal of 0.3Ó images (i band, roughly) across a 1 degree field.
á         Gemini plans to acquire 25 Subaru nights per year (for the entire partnership), which on an aperture weighted basis with Hyper-Suprime-Cam will be equivalent to about 250 CFHT Megaprime nights.
á         JWST will of course provide superb images in the red optical, near infrared and mid-infrared over 2-3 arc-minutes.
á         LSST data is planned to be publicly released. Recall that the site and current plan do not allow for very good images. LSST will map much of the southern sky.
á         JDEM satellite data is planned to be publicÑassuming that the project goes ahead, although there is a case to be involved to better understand the data. JDEM will map much of the entire sky.

There is considerable interest in wide-field spectroscopic data at various resolutions. This is a much more complex situation given the wide range of science cases. It is notable that many younger astronomers are very successful at obtaining spectroscopic time at Keck, VLT and Magellan to undertake spectroscopic work. Particular science interests cover a wide range.

á         4m R~1000 spectra play an important role for brighter objects and defining samples for R~40000 work on 8m class telescopes.  An important issue is to consider what could be done with the existing telescope with a spectrograph behind the existing one degree field imager.
á         The WFMOS stellar archaeology case greatly excited many people. It is a natural match to the parallax and proper motions that GAIA will provide. This is of wide interest internationally, particularly in Europe.
á         The WFMOS large scale structure case probably resonates less strongly in the observational community but it is a natural match to JDEM (if approved) and CMB studies.  It is a very broad interest globally.

 

Finally, there is strong interest in the Canadian community in maintaining an ongoing program of astronomical instrumentation development. Instrument development without a telescope that allows or even guarantees visitor access is very hollow. CFHT has played an important role in instrument development in the past and in some way an integrated telescope plan should take this into account.

This discussion suggests a number of next steps.

á         The interested scientists should develop the science case and opportunities for what could be done with multi-object spectroscopy on the existing 4m CFHT and on a larger replacement telescope.  I will try to pull together a group to write a report and welcome volunteers!
á         Ideally, we should get a better idea of the improvements that various modifications to the existing CFHT dome would give in the image quality.  Some of this will be considered in the IMAKA report, but it is a distinct issue that should be considered on its own.


----------------

"Review Panel for Canadian Participation in the Gemini Observatory" - see 
https://gemini.astrosci.ca/ - esp. documents section

----------------

From:   greg.fahlman at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Subject: UK -STFC Review
Date: October 3, 2009 6:55:40 PM PDT (CA)
To:   paul at astro.ubc.ca, pritchet at phys.uvic.ca
Cc:   carlberg at astro.utoronto.ca, russ at ras.ucalgary.ca

Hi -- 

(from Simon Berry -- STFC Director)

"STFC has been reviewing its ground-based astronomy facilities programme.
The Panel, chaired by Michael Rowan-Robinson, has now completed its initial 
work, and has published a draft report.  This report has been presented to 
our PPAN science committee, and will pass through the other senior 
committees in the coming weeks.  Note that this panel's work forms *advice* 
to the advisory system, and as stressed above, is only one part of a much 
bigger process across STFC.  The report has now been made public, and will 
be open for comment for a fortnight, before we consider inputs and any 
reaction.  It is available at:"

 http://www.scitech.ac.uk/About/Strat/Council/AdCom/oth/GBFR.aspx


Lots of highly relevant reading: JCMT (CCAT); Gemini; SKA; ALMA are things 
we have some interest in -- many other interesting comments.

Greg.

 
-----------

From:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Subject: [Casca-members] Gemini: Review Panel Report - Rapport du panel d'Žvaluation
Date: October 16, 2009 11:40:59 AM PDT (CA)
To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca
Reply-To:   casca-members at physics.queensu.ca

Gemini Assessment Point: Review Panel Report

Dear Colleagues:

I am pleased to advise you that the GAP Review Panel has submitted their 
report. The primary conclusion of Panel is:

"We strongly recommend the continued involvement of Canada in the Gemini 
Observatory partnership at the 15%  level. Canadian astronomers are highly 
dependent on access to 8-10m class telescopes and they will need such access 
for the next decade, at a minimum. Gemini's frontier instrumentation and 
mature and efficient queue observing model make it the natural choice for 
the period covered by this assessment."

The Review Panel included Doug Welch (Panel Chair,  McMaster University); 
Sara Ellison (University of Victoria) and David Hanes (Queen's University). 
I thank them for their work and astute comments.

The complete Report may be viewed at https://gemini.astrosci.ca/ 
(Documents). Please address any comments or questions directly to me 
(greg.fahlman at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca).

This report is advisory to NRC.  The Assessment point will occur during the 
upcoming Board meeting in La Serena Chile on November 11-13.

Greg Fahlman.
Director General, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council