Minutes of the Special NYAC Meeting: NY State Telescope Discussion October 22, 2010 RPI In attendance: Stefi Baum, Arlin Crotts, Rose Finn, Amy Forestell, George Hassel, Rebecca Koopmann, Christina Lacey, Jamie Lloyd, Heidi Newberg, Phil Nicolson, Chris O'Dea, Mary Odekon, Aileen O'Donoghue, Wayne Roberge, Tom Sebring, Dave Toot, Parker Troischt, Ted von Hippel, Fred Walter, Dan Watson, Alan Weatherwax. Attendees represented a total of 14 Institutional Representatives and 17 Directors, including proxies. Chris O'Dea presented an update of work toward the acquisition of a telescope for New York State. Three Letters of Intent were received. Each group presented a summary of their proposal. The presentation ppt/pdf files are available on the ASNY website. Here we record questions from the audience and answers. ALPACA: Arlin Crotts --------------------- Questions/Comments: (1) Budget for data pipeline? (2) What collaboration model do you have in mind? A system in which astronomers at NY institutions have access to data fat some privileged level above other astronomers in the community. This would be subject to negotiation wherein departments paying in would get a proportion of the time. NY state astronomers would have special access, assuming NYAC helps the project move forward. (3) Can area observed be expanded? This would be important for Galactic studies. Possibilities for a larger survey region were explored under the related LAMA project, which was more expensive and complicated. ALPACA has much simpler, straightforward design. However a LAMA-type telescope could follow in future. GEMINI: Jamie Lloyd --------------------- Questions/Comments: (1) Walter noted that NY is #5 in terms of number of astronomers and #4 in terms of use of NOAO facilities. ATNY: Stefi Baum and Tom Sebring -------------------------- Questions/Comments (1) What components could be made in NY besides mirrors? Probably could have trusses and other structural components made, perhaps totaling 50% of components. (2) What is the timeline? Expect 5 years from the time we have money to first light. Approximately 10 years from concept stage to first light. DISCUSSION OF TELESCOPE PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS ----------------------------------------------- Following the presentation, O'Dea presented a proposal for the setup up of a review committee for white papers submitted to the Board. See the presentation posted on the web. Discussion/Comments/Questions after this presentation: von Hippel pointed out a challenge that NYAC faces. If we were proposing a telescope to the NSF, for example, we would know where the money is coming from and therefore how to pitch the proposal. The committee needs to think about how to sell the telescope, i.e., has to scale it to an unknown funding source. O'Dea responded that the white papers need to address a funding model. Walter asked if the committee would pick one of the three white paper proposals or whether the committee could read each one to pick the best parts, e.g., best funding plan, and then make suggestions to revise the various plans. O'Dea responded that we want a review of the pros and cons of each suggestion. We could ask the committee to provide advice about how to improve the proposals. Sebring stated that it is critical to define evaluation criteria, e.g., scientific merit, cost and cost credibility. The committee should be chartered to evaluate, e.g., "best value". O'Dea agreed that we need to specify in the charter to get what we need from the committee. von Hippel asked about the time frame of the committee. O'Dea responded that the committee will be in place for the January timescale. They would have a few months to review the proposals, perhaps finishing in late spring. von Hippel pointed out that a possible approach to Gemini would need to be on a relatively quick timescale. O'Dea felt that a proposal could be chosen by May. However Baum pointed out that we won't know about possibilities of State funding by that time. Weatherwax commented that we need a case for why this is a good thing for NY state. The science is a no-brainer, but the selling point for the state would be a line-up of industries across NY. O'Dea pointed out that this should be addressed in the white papers. Lloyd commented that we can point at states that have only a slightly larger number of astronomers, but bring in billions of federal dollars for astronomy. Walter pointed out that we need to have a plan that small colleges can get behind and thus we need input from small colleges, e.g., how will folks at small places use the telescope? von Hippel commented that the timescale demands a parallel effort for funding. For example, while pursuing a telescope at Texas, various plans would be developed and presented to administrators and then the plans that the administrators liked could be pursued. Baum pointed out that the history of New York state institutions has been one of pulling in different directions. Thus an alternate approach is to pick one plan and then try another afterward. O'Dea requested comments on the Strawman Committee. Finn suggested that there was a relatively small representation of large universities considering we need the large universities to be united behind a plan. Newberg pointed out that we can't have someone from a proposing institution on the committee. Sebring expressed concern that no one from a large university development office was proposed and suggested one should be included. Such a representative would be skilled in strategies for obtaining money from individuals, foundations, governments, etc. Baum pointed out that it might be difficult to engage someone from a development office when the money raised would not go directly to the university. Recommendations for someone who could do this job would be accepted, preferably someone from the SUNY system. Roberge asked if the committee will need resources, e.g., lobbyists? O'Dea responded that NYAC could provide honoraria and funding for small expenses. Committee members would likely conduct business via telecon and not need much. Baum pointed out that the committee might want to meet in person. Sebring suggested that the committee could review proposals for awhile and then have a fact-finding meeting with proposers. O'Dea felt this was a good idea and that we could cover the expenses. von Hippel asked whether such a meeting would be open for folks who aren't conflicted to participate. O'Dea suggested that we could open part of the meting for folks to witness presentations and participate and then have the committee meet privately to debate. O'Dea asked if the participants were agreed that we should follow the proposed model. Baum asked if we should perhaps increase the number of people with NY government experience to 2. Walter asked if the science pundit could be from outside NY and O'Dea said yes. Watson felt it was important that someone on the committee have experience with costing, perhaps costed something in the past. O'Dea said that this could be the role of the telescope/instrument pundit. Baum said perhaps the NY Industry person could fulfill this role. Finn asked if this role could be filled by someone like an observatory directory or instrument developer and O'Dea agreed. Baum pointed out that once formed, the committee might have lack of some expertise. Others members could be added as needed to find that expertise. Sebring said that the committee needs to have people who carry some weight. They will write an endorsement of the proposal. There should be some folks of national repute. Baum said that we could do two stages. In this stage, we would aim to get good comments, etc., and then form a second committee to look at the comments and improve the proposals. In this way, there would be a more robust final description that could be taken to NY State. The Directors and Representatives present at the meeting agreed to the proposed plan to organize the Telescope Review Committee. A call for nominations will be conducted by O'Dea. Meeting was adjourned.