News by Council/Committee
news
November 29, 2011
Cover Letter Report of the AURA Consolidation Working GroupPlease post comments below
| Comments | |
| Anonymous 3/2/2012 |
The main problem with Gemini governance is the lack of direct communication between all partner communities and the operations staff and administration in situ at the telescopes themselves. This has allowed the higher level managers at the Gemini Telescopes to essentially ignore repeated pleas from the community and the AURA board regarding prioritization of activities at the observatory - namely, prioritizing scientific return over the desires of the non-astronomer engineering staff and management. It has also encouraged the proliferation of high-level managers and administrators at the telescopes while simultaneously having insufficient science and engineering staff for executing the real hands-on day-to-day needs of the observatory both in science observations and processing and in engineering to get new instruments up and running and to maintain the older instruments and the facility. A classic problem of 'too many chiefs and not enough indians' (so to speak). Furthermore, the management structure in Gemini is such that the highest level of management is somehow not able to direct that the science return of the observatory take priority to engineering - the science and engineering staffs track in parallel and neither has priority over the other. In practice this seems to lead to the observatory's operations as being engineering-driven rather than optimized for science return. Any new Gemini Governance structure should not only make the highest tiers of management hugely more responsive to the priorities of the astronomers in the partner countries but should also set up clear lines of authority within the observatory that will ensure that science needs have the highest priority (not bypassing actual safety needs, of course) when prioritizing both science *and* engineering work at the observatories. The science head ought to be able to clearly direct the managers of the engineering side to work on X project before Y. Many people I have talked to who have worked for Gemini at the science staff level have repeatedly noted that the observatory appears to them to be 'engineering-driven' rather than 'science-driven'. So the new governance structure needs to ensure that the management will be much more responsive to the astronomical community's scientific needs, and then have the ability to direct the observatory staff to prioritize the work such that those needs will be met expeditiously. |
| Anonymous Brazil 2/4/2012 |
I'm surprised that the date of the release is November 29, 2011. Only today (Feb 4, 2012), more than 2 months after this release, members of the Brazilian community were told about this report. Many Brazilian astronomers are already dissatisfied with what they can get from Gemini. From many points of view, Gemini is well behind ESO, especially regarding the kind of instrumentation that they can offer to US and non-US astronomers. I'm not sure if the consolidate model is going to improve this lack of both rapid and long-term responsiveness to the users. |
| Anonymous 2/1/2012 |
The basic problem with Gemini governance is that there is too complex a management structure already. The 2009 Altair report showed this quite clearly on the last page with a chart of all the managing bodies of Gemini. Ultimately, this governance structure is a hindrance to change because it makes it hard for the end users to work with observatory staff in directing the overall course of the observatory. The consolidation models described in the current AURA study do little to improve the situation, and actually appear to make the governance more complex. The combined model, the hybrid model, and the corporate model are all very top-heavy in terms of management structure. Ultimately, Gemini has about 200 employees. This is actually a pretty small entity by corporate standards, so using anything resembling a corporate model results in too much upper level management. A more suitable model would be an academic model where key management positions such associate directors (akin to department chairs) and even lead director could be chosen from within the staff and serve limited, rotating terms. There are many academic institutions of similar size and complexity which function effectively with such a model. Ultimately Gemini should be following a more academic model, rather than a more corporate model. |
| Elizabeth Lada University of Florida 1/28/2012 |
I think consolidation is the best way forward to insure a strong national OIR observatory. |
| William S. Smith AURA 1/7/2012 |
Dear All, I deeply appreciate the many thoughtful and useful comments that are being posted on this list. Our intention was to elicit the full range of views including those of the international users. There are no good distribution lists that are inclusive, thus please make this known to your colleagues. There is one point to be made in response to one recurring comment. That is, some have accurately pointed out that a full consolidation is only one possible model, others are also plausible. To that end, the report also included a hypbrid model. I would much appreciate some attention to this and comments pro and con. |
| Bruce Macintosh Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1/2/2012 |
As Sally Oey notes below, it is incorrect to say (as the cover letter does) that consolidating NOAO and Gemini is a “recommendation” of the Decadal Survey. Both the OIR panel report (which I was involved in) and the overall Survey recommended this only as one option to consider, primarily to see if it would lead to cost savings. The full text of the AURA report does acknowledge the actual language in passing, but then continues to treat it as if this were mandated by the Survey. It was recognized by the OIR panel that Gemini needs to be restructured to be more responsive to the users. The strongest recommendation was that this restructuring be done in a consultative manner with all the partners – everyone would like things to be better – not unilaterally by the US. Any structure does have to give the international partners a meaningful voice in strategic decisions for the future. It is not obvious that a merger with NOAO would improve things in the key problem areas – responsiveness to user requirements, instrument development and improvement that meets scientific needs, etc. NOAO has done a very good job in some scientific areas, but much less so in others. (For example they’re much stronger in serving the needs of the extragalactic / cosmological area than the exoplanet area – I’m hard pressed to think of a single important exoplanet result that came from a NOAO-operated telescope, though 3-5m class facilities at other observatories continue to make major contributions.) It might be best to think about this as several separate needs. First, what operational structures can generate cost savings – consolidating some operations with NOAO might well help this. Second, what management structure can generate better responsiveness to user requirements – better feedback between users and the observatory staff, better use of that information in prioritizing activities such as instrument upgrades. Third, what overall governance structure can give a reasonable voice to all the partners and make sensible long-term decisions. |
| Sergio Cellone FCAG-UNLP & IALP, CONICET, Argentina 12/30/2011 |
I wish to share my personal opinions about the full consolidation model (FCM), which is the model supported by the AURA Board. I see some points with potential negative (or at least not positive) impact, regarding science, as well as technical and political aspects. Science: The design of both Gemini telescopes as twin instruments optimized for the IR followed a decision based on the opinions of the (mainly US) astronomical community. Now, the same community is dissatisfied. If scientific return was not as expected, it is not clear how the FCM could improve the Gemini telescopes productivity. In fact, scientific productivity seems not to be wildly different among Gemini partners. FCM will discourage the participation of non-US partners beyond 2015. I find no solidly founded reasons to support the idea that the FCM would help to improve the scientific productivity of Gemini. The FCM goes against one of the main advantages of Gemini (that which gives its name): an observatory operating as a single facility, that "consists of twin 8.1-meter diameter optical/infrared telescopes", with similar instrumentation, that "can collectively access the entire sky". (Text within quotes was cited from http://www.gemini.edu/) Technical: Gemini effectively works as ONE observatory (e.g.: a unique MOS mask-cutting machine can be used for both telescopes). FCM will, at the very least, make this more difficult. Association (of telescopes) should be made on technical/scientific grounds, and not based on geographical proximity. Political point of view: The FCM definitely leaves no room for international partners (especially those with a smaller share). The decision of the AURA board seems to implicitly recognize this fact, and I think it goes in the wrong direction. - Will the proposed new management save enough money to compensate for a 50% budget loss if all non-US partners leave after 2015? - Bad precedent: if adopted,the FCM will probably discourage potential international partners to join the US in future science projects. In regard to this last point, I must say that my country failed to perform as a trustworthy Gemini partner in the past; we have now learned -I hope!- that we have to comply with our duties within the partnership if we want to be considered seriously. I am concerned and surprised about the FCM, that seems to want the US follow the opposite path. |
| Sally Oey University of Michigan 12/29/2011 |
First, I'm concerned that the full consolidation model sounds great, but is easier said than done. I, too, would love to see real to-do lists with price tags on what is needed to implement this model, with similar comparisons to the other options. Second, can we achieve our needs for Gemini by diplomacy instead of annexation? What are the goals, exactly? To improve the scientific return and access for the US Community? Or to save NOAO? Or merely to streamline the US OIR system operations? The NWNH recommended that NSF "explore" and "consider consolidating" -- I'm uncomfortable with the overriding weight given to the recommendation as an absolute mandate. Again I'd like to see more specifics on exactly how these options will solve the issues at hand, and what the ranking of these issues are. Third, a 65% share is politically very different from an 85% share. Did the ACWG committee test the waters with the international partners? At the very least, it would be a courtesy to do so. This survey seems a bit premature given the lack of information or clarity on the above. I do think it's excellent that the ACWG is looking into the options in more detail, and everyone would welcome a less cumbersome management structure for Gemini. |
| An Interested Party US Community 12/29/2011 |
I have been perusing and digesting the public comments below since the announcement. Currently I prefer to remain anonymous but I do have experience with AURA managed sites as well as R&D and operational sites pertaining to large telescopes used for astronomical research. As the thread has developed it has become clear that the community response is quite bimodal with the majority, with a few significant exceptions, of US based responses favoring a combined NOAO-Gemini governance model and those from the international community favoring maintaining the separation of the two. Currently AURA operates the Gemini Observatory, and hence the two telescopes, under a Cooperative Agreement which is due for recompetition in 2015 when the International Partnership agreement is also due to be revisited. The existing management by AURA of Gemini has not been stellar. To quote from David Crampton, "Being the major partner in Gemini, AURA bears the primary responsibility for both the present governance structure and its design/capabilities." This is also echoed by Tim Davidge, "If there is the perception that Gemini has not worked well under its management for the past 17 years then should not AURA shoulder much of the responsibility for this? " So if the existing governance has not been successful under AURA then why must we assume that bringing Gemini into a consolidation with NOAO would be an improvement given that NOAO management does not necessarily have large telescope experience? I presume that the NSF will look carefully into this for the Cooperative Agreement recompetition. Also the efficiencies in operations brought about by the consolidation plans have not been spelt out. For example the shared expertise of the Gemini staff between the two locations is a fundamental component of Gemini operations. How would this be handled under the full consolidation model? It seems that these models need to fleshed out significantly and how the consolidation would actually benefit efficiencies of operations needs to be outlined in more detail. Furthermore, a consolidation of NOAO and Gemini before the recompetition will inherently make management of the Cooperative Agreement by any other organization more problematic and therefore less competitive, thus presenting an AURA bias which would seem to go against the very nature of a recompetition. This consolidation of Gemini and NOAO governance could well be appealing to the US community but does not seem to appeal to the International Partners and could well end up alienating them such that their memberships are not renewed after 2015. And if the US is, by then, the only significant partner then how does the US expect to operate both telescopes with sole NSF funding? What are the contingencies? There are statements in the text about the concerns of the International Partners and I would strongly advise the Gemini Board and the NSF to investigate ALL of the possible contingencies before agreeing to any consolidation approach. The release of the AURA Gemini Governance report would appear to lack diplomacy regarding the International Partners and leads one to question how well AURA are suited to be the management agency for such an International Program. A question for AURA, the US Community and the NSF is to whether they are truly interested in non-US participation? It should be also noted that with the withdrawal of the UK, at the end of 2012, the US becomes the dominant partner and the US community will then have more input into future scientific and technical directions for the observatory which they have desired for a while. The recent reorganization of Gemini Management now has a Science and Technology Advisory Committee (STAC) which advises the Gemini Board directly (http://www.gemini.edu/science/#stac), replacing the Gemini Science Committee, providing such an avenue. Any reorganization/consolidation of the AURA managed ground-based facilities needs to be done in context of the NSF's Strategic Portfolio Review (SPR). If US observatories are to be competitive with ESO, the community needs to be UNIFIED and have a LONG-TERM vision which is currently lacking. Hopefully the NSF's SPR will look into addressing this and have the leadership for follow-through. If we are to have a viable OIR System, then Gemini cannot be isolated from the other 8m class telescopes available to the US community. In other words, if we are to be a "productive" community then we, as a community, need to look at what's best in total. Do we want to have public access to Keck, Magellan, MMT, and the LBT? Or is Gemini going to be the only true public-access observatory? Chick Woodward presented a very interesting scenario of a Northern Hemisphere Observatory (Mauna Kea) and a Southern Hemisphere Observatory (Chile) in his very detailed response below which could well be looked at based on the SPR. I also find it interesting that the announcement of this Study was dated Nov. 29th, but that the "Dear Colleague" letter was not sent out for two weeks (Dec. 13th) with a due date by the close of the year. I personally know members of the US community who did not receive this "Dear Colleague" letter as well as members of the International Partners. And based on other feedback on this page, various members of the Gemini Board themselves were not aware. Why didn't AURA use the AAS exploder and its counterparts for the International Partnership nations in order to solicit the feedback from the majority of users in order to demonstrate that they are serious about receiving community input? In summary, while an NOAO-Gemini Consolidation looks appealing at a number of levels, it is important for the community representatives, including of course the International Partners, to be fully involved. The proposed consolidations have not been fully fleshed-out and would appear to be happening in a vacuum of the NSF's SPR. It would be prudent to wait for the SPR recommendations and then the US community would be better served by decisive leadership from the NSF as to how to select and implement these recommendations for an improved US OIR system serving the full US community in a smiler manner to how ESO serves its community. |
| Anonymous 12/24/2011 |
"Conflict of Interest" Employees involved in the development of the consolidation plan are the employees that are directly benefiting?? Shouldn't Gemini have had a say in the plan before the decision was made of their fate? Isn't it the board's and NSF's due diligence to look into this plan and how it was developed? |
| David Crampton 12/22/2011 |
The ACWG report (and mandate) only addresses one narrow aspect of the NWNH report concerning the governance of Gemini but ignores the other NWNH comments about the increasing importance and benefits of the “globalization” of astronomy: “it is imperative that planning for the U.S. research enterprise be done in an international context.” The present Gemini governance model does not work well – observatories should NOT be run like a government organization, rather they should be operated by a lean, autonomous entity more like CFHT or Keck. Observatories should be able to react quickly to opportunities and be able to make long-term plans for the betterment of science, free of excess bureaucracy and political constraints. Consolidating Gemini and NOAO operation would be a completely backwards step! Rather, more international partnerships should be sought, with a goal of increasing the coordination among observatories to provide the broadest possible capabilities at minimal cost. The Gemini design is what it is largely as a result of the 1991 US decadal survey that recommended it be an “IR optimized telescope”. As a result it has a small undersized secondary mirror and a relatively small field of view with no Nasmyth foci. But it was too early: good IR detectors and the IR research community weren’t ready. That has evolved, and Gemini now has unbeatable potential for IR observations with and without adaptive optics, as well as for TOO observations and accommodating variable observing conditions. Other telescopes are providing, or can provide, complementary capabilities (e.g., high resolution spectroscopy or wide field multi-object spectroscopy): with diminishing funding we must all work together rather than duplicating facilities. Being the major partner in Gemini, AURA bears the primary responsibility for both the present governance structure and its design/capabilities. It is time for change – make Gemini a more competitive independent international organization. |
| Caty Pilachowski Indiana University 12/20/2011 |
The most important criterion in deciding among governance models surely must be the potential for increased scientific productivity. WIYN, for example, operates in the "hybrid" model, but it productivity has been relatively low compared to other 4-m class telescopes. It's probably too early to assess the productivity of SOAR. Productivity under the Gemini corporate model is likely not to be substantially different from productivity under Gemini's current governance model, since the same driving forces would be at work. In contrast, the productivity of NOAO's 4-m telescopes is very high. From this perspective, the consolidation model offers the best opportunity to enhance the success of Gemini by increasing its productivity. I worry about the long-term viability of the Gemini Observatory if consolidation is not pursued vigorously. |
| Knox Long Space Teleescope Science Institute 12/20/2011 |
I support the conclusions of the report. Full consolidation is the cleanest management path forward and will reduce the complexity facing US (and other) astronomers trying to utilize US public observing resources. In my opinion, it increases the probability that sensible choices will be made concerning the balance of public telescope resources available for US astronomers, and that the scientific productivity of the system as a whole will be maximized. |
| Lisa Prato Lowell Observatory 12/19/2011 |
Full consolidation not only offers a way forward to address some dissatisfaction within the Gemini users' community but also provides a more efficient management structure for both Gemini and NOAO, particularly important in the current climate of shrinking resources. It would be insightful to obtain specific comments on the perceived pros and cons from the partner country users' communities. Having read through the comments solicited in the ALTAIR survey (I was on the committee), I know the majority of US users wanted change. |
| Josh Walawender University of Hawaii at Hilo 12/19/2011 |
The idea of a consolidated US national observatory is appealing. Moving to a consolidated system (more like ESO) has the potential to streamline access for US based astronomers. However, it is not clear to me what gains the users will see from this restructuring. The ACWG report seems to focus on the changes to the chain of command, not to the technical and scientific support which more directly impacts users. In the list of "Primary Pros" of the consolidated model, items 1-3 don't directly affect users and item 4 is vague and unsupported. How specifically will "cost savings in overall operations" be realized? What personnel or resources are duplicated now that won't be under this restructuring? I'm concerned that the report seems to use promises of efficiency as a selling point for the consolidated model without explaining how they are to be achieved. |
| James Turner Gemini Observatory 12/16/2011 |
This report and subsequent discussion would benefit from some analysis of how consolidation would achieve the stated aims (particularly in terms of cost savings compared with the other models), presenting the appropriate facts and figures. Such arguments might be more persuasive to a wider audience than statements of preference and high-level overview -- as might a proactive focus on how a consolidated observatory would be responsive to the needs of all the partners. It would be informative to see some discussion of the implications and contingency plans should this scenario motivate any more international partners to reconsider their involvement (an outcome which I sincerely hope we can avoid, for the benefit of all concerned). |
| Rene Racine Assoc. of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy 12/15/2011 |
Consolidating the international Gemini Observatory and the facilities of the U.S. National Optical Astronomical Observatory into a single operational structure would be a step in the wrong direction. Large science projects succeed when driven by the power of vibrant and respectful international partnerships. The continuing inability of fully seizing the opportunities offered by such ventures – ideally structured as treaty organizations - has weakened the competitiveness of the Gemini Observatory in the 8-m era and would be the demise of U.S. ground-based astronomy in the ELT era. |
| Mike Simon Stony Brook University 12/15/2011 |
The consolidated model is an idea whose time has come. The streamlining will be most apparent in the south. I support it fully. |
| Anonymous 12/15/2011 |
The numbers speak for themselves. For and against the consolidation plan proposed so far we have these commenters: US: 7 For, 2 Against. Non-US: 0 For, 2 Against. Gemini staff: 0 For, 2 Against. Anonymous: 0 For, 2 Against. Total: 7 For, 8 Against. (where For = "more for than against" and Against = "more against than for") International? As much as baseball is international ;) |
| Anonymous 12/15/2011 |
How to consolidate without disrespecting the international partners? Maybe the solution is not to nationalize Gemini, it's to internationalize NOAO. Create some new umbrella organization ("International Observatory of the Americas?") following the model of the Gemini partnership and give it responsibility for all the smaller scopes too, including whatever smaller diameter facilities the other nations might be willing to contribute as well. The US would clearly be the dominant partner, but other nations would retain a say. Increased US influence over Gemini decision making gets balanced out by letting our partners also propose for time at KPNO and CTIO... ESO for north and south America? |
| Guillermo Bosch Instituto Astrofísica La Plata (Argentina) 12/15/2011 |
I have contacted our National representative at the Gemini Board and she tells me she had no knowledge about these plans. It is therefore weird that AURA on its own discusses changes in the governance of an international partnership observatory. Do they really consider that international partners are disposable? |
| Anonymous 12/15/2011 |
How can anybody in their right mind imagine that the international partners would possibly agree with those plans?? |
| Debra Elmegreen Vassar College 12/14/2011 |
I believe that the fully consolidated model is the best way forward to maintain a strong US OIR System. It is vital to our community to have public access to telescopes, and with diminished resources it is important not to pit NOAO and Gemini against one another. We need large and small telescopes in our system. I think the fully consolidated model is the best opportunity to consider the balance and preserve and improve the system. I understand that the international partnership aspect will have to be dealt with carefully. Disclaimer: I served on Astro2010. |
| Dr. Chick Woodward Minnesota Institute for Astrophysics. 12/14/2011 |
The ACWG attempted to meet some of the ideas contained in the NWNH, but recommended a structure that does not take into full account the international nature of the current Gemini partnership and the important resources that international partners provide to the continuing operations of the facility. In addition, the committee failed to fully recognize that the daily operations of the two Gemini's are tightly integrated in terms of technical and engineering staff. Unless there is an opportunity to stand up independent engineering and technical staffs resident at both sites, it seems that the proposed structure which splits the organization into N and S components will actually drive costs upward and decrease efficiency. However, more troubling may be the effect of attempting to completely subsume (i.e., the full consolidation discussed in he ACWG report) Gemini within the US National Observatory organization as a means to an end to meet the desire for the US community to fully control operations and strategic direction. If the Gemini were to suffer the departure of another major partner (as a result of this reorganization), it is unlikely that the US could effectively operate the facilities and NOAO in its current form. Unwinding of NOAO (in particular KPNO) could be an unpleasant outcome to sustain even minimal operations of both Gemini telescopes given the budget constraints faced by the NSF. The US community must recognize the importance of the international partners' fiscal contributions (and hence their desire to be full participants in the governance) is key to sustaining 8-m access to public facilities supported by the stewardship of US (limited) federal resources. Certainly, other high priority NWNH ground-based facilities will be international in scope. If federal funds are committed, US public interests (as expressed by for example by AURA) will have to understand the value of collaborative partnerships, whether or not one has a dominate fiscal stake. The ACWG desire to remove the NSF from the decision making processes of facilities it supports through managing organizations may not be practicable to fully implement. Lack of nimbleness of the current Gemini operations and procurement is a result of agency processes that flow with the release of federal funds for large facilities. The proposed new organizational chart is very "thick" with middle management and does not exhibit the type of consolidation that would integrate the US system of governance, capabilities, and access into a less cumbersome arrangement. Given the ideal of an efficiently managed US system expressed in NWNH that marshals the wide variety of public/private assets to provide access to address fundamental science questions, the ACWG recommendation seems byzantine. Did the committee consider a structure that integrated CTIO, Gemini-S, SOAR (access management), and LSST into a single functional unit geographically situated in Chile, while amalgamating Gemini-N, Keck (access management), CHFT (if the Canadians can be convinced to participate more deeply with AURA), and KPNO into a northern unit, geographical situated in HI? Certainly this would position US astronomy, led by a national observatory, to respond to potential public involvement in other potential new capabilities expressed in NWNH. Lastly, we must recognize that the Gemini telescope's current capabilities are drawn directly from requirements spelled out in an earlier Decadal survey, wherein the US community expressed the need for development of IR optimized 8-m telescopes. Hence the instrument suite, the small-field of view - high spatial resolution design, emissivity characteristics of the optics, and structural design of the telescope often are not ideal for promoting an optical observational emphasis. Thus, we must ask whether the decadal survey recommendations that lead to the Gemini telescopes "got it wrong." |
| Michael Wood-Vasey University of Pittsburgh 12/14/2011 |
Consolidation makes a tremendous amount of sense to best organize and sustain US astronomy observations. Both organizationally and scientifically, the telescopes with major fractions of US public time should be managed in a coordinated fashion. I certainly understand the concerns that splitting Gemini North and Gemini South is a risk. The Geminis are much more closely integrated than the Mayall and Blanco and there is benefit from that. However, I think that consolidation will succeed despite the nominal separation of Gemini North and South if clear efforts are made to retain the key technical and scientific staff who have existing and successful working relations with each other. But along the same vein, the benefits of consolidation are particularly clear for joint Chilean operations where common staff can share expertise across telescopes and management can structure and depend on such common effort. The biggest challenge will be to create a new overall structure with clear appeal to new and existing international partners. There are definitely opportunities here, particularly with countries newly participating in the international astronomical scene who are interested in a small share in a distributed telescope system. |
| Marshall Perrin STScI 12/14/2011 |
I share Angelic Ebbers' view that Gemini benefits from combined operation of the two nearly-but-not-quite identical telescopes with many common systems and instruments. Any consolidated plan should try to preserve this aspect (especially since splitting currently shared engineering capabilities could easily be a cost increase). But I'll admit I'm less familiar with NOAO - to what extent are operations and engineering coordinated between KPNO and CTIO? With duplicate instruments like COSMOS/KOSMOS coming, surely there must be systems in place to pool resources and lessons learned. How well KPNO and CTIO do and/or do not work as an integrated system in two locations is an important example case for comparison with Gemini in both its current and proposed consolidated management. In my own experience both using and developing instrumentation for Gemini, the contribution of our international partners has been extremely valuable. In particular the Canadian community has some extraordinary talents. From my perspective it is essential that any plan forward be designed to mesh with the needs and desires of our current partners -- and potentially with new ones. It concerns me that, while the Consolidation Working Group report repeatedly considers the possibility & risks of additional international partner withdrawals, nowhere does it consider what it would take to make Gemini/NOAO a desirable community that new partners would aspire to *join*, the way ESO now is (see Brazil). Our ambitions are larger than our pocketbooks, and likely to stay that way; making Gemini/NOAO a very attractive international partnership is almost certainly required to keep it competitive (in both dollars and brain power). |
| Wolfgang Brandner MPIA 12/14/2011 |
As someone from outside the Gemini community I do not feel it approriate to comment on the pros and cons of the different options outlined in the reports to the Gemini board and to AURA. As an early user of Gemini North (Hi Tim!), however, I can attest that the Gemini observatory as an integrated, international institution has progressed quite impressively over the past decade. The observatory developed a high level of expertise in many areas (operations, software & hardware development, etc.), and could probably be described as world-leading in quite a few (like, e.g., some of the ongoing adaptive optics developments). Thus frustration over past problems and inefficiencies experienced by Gemini users should not be the main decision driver. That being said, in a period of upcoming 20m to 40m class optical telescopes, there are most likely efficiencies to be gained by consolidating the access to and operations of "smaller" facilities. Efficiency alone, though, is probably not the single best metric to achieve scientific progress. |
| Timothy Davidge 12/13/2011 |
What benefits are there to the international partners, who have contributed 50% of the funds to date? I suspect that a major part of the frustration US users feel with Gemini is due to the finite number of nights that are available, compounded by a much smaller, competing community that has access to the two Keck telescopes. This will not change by going to the combined model. To be honest, I find AURA's participation in this exercise to be puzzling. In Item 1 of `Agreements among the Representives' (http://www.aura-astronomy.org/governance%5Ccharters%5CaocgCharter.pdf) it is stated that `AURA will ensure that its policies and practices in the Gemini Project do not conflict with the policies of the Gemini Board'. Was the re-organization study sanctioned by the Gemini Board? In Item 2 it is stated that `AURA recognizes that the Gemini Project has an intrinsically international character which makes it unlike any other AURA Center or activity.' The spirit of the re-organization document seems counter to this. AURA has been the Managing body of Gemini since the `Record of Agreement' was signed in early 1994. If there is the perception that Gemini has not worked well under its management for the past 17 years then should not AURA shoulder much of the responsibility for this? How does the proposal address this issue? |
| Anil Seth University of Utah 12/13/2011 |
I am a frequent Gemini user, and have overall been pleased with the data I have obtained. However, I find one of the most significant problems with Gemini is the lack of operations transparency. For example, Gemini's queue observing depends on seeing measurements, but the seeing estimates obtained at the telescope are not available to the users. Also there is an unfortunate barrier between national Gemini office staff (at NOAO) and the Gemini operations and staff. It appears that the fully consolidated model would solve these issues by integrating these staff, and by making Gemini directly accountable to the US community. It is less clear if the Hybrid model would tackle this issue. The plan for integrating international partners into the consolidated plan seems to be its primary weakness, and given that the US can't afford a 100% share in Gemini, this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed before moving forward. Finally, I want to stress the importance of retaining scientific staff at the observatories during any restructuring. If we wish to have a national observatory that is responsive to user community needs and has the vision to carry out improvements to the telescopes, we need to have an experienced and capable scientific staff, not just technical and service staff. |
| Christopher Stubbs Harvard University 12/13/2011 |
Consolidate? Yes, absolutely! |
| Anonymous 12/13/2011 |
This sounds to me like a plot to keep NOAO afloat and a blatant conflict of interest on AURA's part. |
| Ron Samec 12/13/2011 |
I think consolidation is the way to save the entire enterprise of NOAO + Gemini. I can forsee NOAO losing funding entirely in the future and our astronomers need both systems. |
| Philip Massey Lowell Observatory 12/13/2011 |
Gemini has sadly failed to meet the expectations of many of us. The full consolidation model seems to be the only hope for success. The panel provides very cogent arguments in favor of this, and the consolidation is long overdue, in my opinion. |
| R. Mason Gemini Observatory 12/13/2011 |
It is hard to see how the full consolidation model can be reconciled with a genuine international partnership. What incentives are there for the other Gemini partners to stay involved under that scheme? Does AURA see international participation as necessary, or even desirable? |
| Andrew Szentgyorgyi CfA 12/12/2011 |
After reading the Gemini Governance Study, there can be little room for debate. Full consolidation is the only way forward. While the review panel was obliged to offer alternative strategies, those alternatives only underscore the primacy of the full consolidation approach. The community owes its gratitude to the panel for a cogent and succinct analysis and recommendation. |
| Angelic Ebbers Gemini Observatory 12/2/2011 |
I'm concerned that the Full Consolidation Model involves separating the operations of the GN and GS telescopes. Currently there is significant shared resources and technical support between the two telescopes. Most of the infrastructure (hardware and software) is identical and improvements/solutions developed for one telescope are applied to both. There are personnel which very specialized knowledge and skills who are located at one facility but actively support both. Both telescopes would suffer in isolation from each other. While it seems as if operations efficiency might be improved by combining the co-located facilities in La Serena, I see this as more of an administrative savings. I see far more advantage to sharing technical resources between identical, geographically separate facilities than technically dissimilar telescopes that happen to be physically close to each other. That said, this is the opinion of an engineer, looking at the technical and operations impact … I know little of the financial implications of Consolidation. |
| W. S. Smith AURA 12/1/2011 |
I hope all of our colleagues take the opportunity to comment on this thoughtful paper. We have tried to address the very difficult problem of envisioning a coherent US observatory system and optimizing NSF investments, with the reality that Gemini will retain its international character for the forseeable future. Ideally, the proper structure will offer scientific and financial benefits to all partners, and a stronger US national observatory system. |
