REPORT OF THE SECOND OPTICON
MEDIUM-SIZED TELESCOPES WORKING GROUP MEETING
HELD ON 15-17 MARCH 2001, IN AGUADULCE, SPAIN

A copy of this report is available at http://www.astro-opticon.org/

Present:	Prof. G Gilmore (Chairman), Dr A Aparicio (IAC),
Dr M Auriere (OMP/TBL), Dr W Boland (NWO/NOVA),
Dr G Debouzy (INSU-CNRS), Dr M Dennefeld (Paris IAP
and OHP representative), Prof. G Fahlman (CFHT),
Dr R Gredel (Calar Alto), Dr E Harlaftis (NOA/Greece), 
Dr J Melnick (ESO), Dr P Murdin (PPARC), 
Prof. B Nordstrom (EAS), Dr E Oliva (TNG),
Dr V Piirola (NOTSA), Prof. M Rodono (CNAA),
Dr R Rutten (ING), Dr J Davies (OPTICON Administrator),
Dr C Vincent (PPARC Observer)


1	Goals of the Working Group and Agenda

1.1	As a result of the meeting in Lyon in December 2000, OPTICON
agreed to set up a Working Group to consider future options for the
medium-sized, ground-based optical-IR telescope facilities operated by the
European community.  A number of sub-groups had been asked to prepare
discussion papers concerning: a system of instrument (hardware and
software) co-ordination and development; a system to extend telescope
access; a system to exchange time between telescopes, reviewing current
arrangements and ideas for how to barter time, to build on a co-ordinated
instrumentation programme and systems for enhancing the education and
training role of facilities, considering both policies and new funding
sources.  The reports of these sub-groups formed the basis of the Agenda
for this first meeting of the Working Group

1.2	The overall goal of the Working Group is to achieve European-wide
co-ordination in medium-sized, ground?based, optical?IR observational
astronomy facilities. Professor Gilmore highlighted the opportunity which
was open to astronomy to make a major contribution to the structure of the
EU's Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) and to ensure that its terms and
conditions were favorable to the needs of the astronomy community.  This
was a time-limited opportunity since the basis for FP6 was currently open
to consultation.  OPTICON had been invited to propose a limited number of
example programmes which might seek funding from FP6.  The challenge to
OPTICON was to ensure that these were exciting, novel programmes which
embraced the strategic aims of the EU, whilst helping to realise high
priority objectives of European astronomy.

1.3	The Working Group identified two main themes which might form part
of a proposal to the EU:

1.3.1	With the long-term aim of introducing  all European astronomers to
state-of-the-art research facilities and develop scientific collaborations
across Europe, it was agreed to propose the establishment of  a common
pool of European observing time open to the EU community, on the basis of
scientific excellence. The intention is  to provide access to facilities
based on scientific merit in a way not limited by the geographical
location of a particular facility or individual. This pool of time would
be created by contributions of excess national capacity on various
facilities operated by EU member states. It is intended to seek to obtain
EU resources for both the operational costs of this observing time and the
travel costs of the visiting observers. The objective is to both maximise
the usefulness of  present facilities and to foster a culture of
co?operation across European astronomy. In particular, this scheme will
target countries which at present have limited, or no, access to modern
facilities, such as those in Eastern Europe.

1.3.2	The Working Group believed in the power of astronomy to motivate
young people to study physical sciences.  It agreed to draw up a coherent
strategy involving first class research and training on current
facilities, improvements in interoperability of  facilities and
co?ordinated future technological development. The Group felt that
synergies in complementary instrumentation, savings of operational costs,
rapid implementation of time swapping and a coherent scientific strategy
would be of wide benefit to the effectiveness of European science.

2	Benefits for Europe

2.1	To convince the EU of the value of this programme the Working
Group proposal would emphasise the provision of new opportunities to
develop European science. It will add value to European astronomy by
making existing facilities open to a wider range of users and for a wider
range of projects. This will increase the number of opportunities for
gifted individuals to develop their ideas fully without being limited to
only  those national facilities to which they normally have access. At the
same time the network provides a natural opportunity to rationalise
facilities while ensuring the full range of capabilities is retained for
the community as a whole. This will release resources for other innovative
astronomy projects.

2.2	The Working Group agreed that  this was an important step in the
process of building wider, better trained EU community to prepare for the
next generation extremely large telescope, or ELT, which is the subject of
another OPTICON working group. The success of Spanish astronomy was
highlighted as an example of how access to new and better facilities can
help boost basic research in a country.

3	The Benefits for the EU Astronomical Community

3.1	The need to convince individual national astronomy communities
that the proposed network is in their best interests was emphasised.  It
is they who ultimately must agree to it. The Working Group agreed to
stress that such a network will lead to a wider range of instruments and
opportunities and at the same time make access to those facilities easier.
However, it was noted that astronomers needed the capability to choose
those telescopes most suitable for their scientific purpose, and not to be
constrained by arbitrary rules.  They also want simple application
procedures and a simple method to get travel funds. The OPTICON proposal
would need to address these wishes.

3.2	Other aspects which the Working Group agreed needed emphasising
were that:

3.2.1	through its working groups OPTICON provides a natural forum to
identify existing and required capabilities across Europe;

3.2.2	the proposal will allow the development of European?wide common
software for activities such as proposal submission, data reduction,
observation preparation, and instrument control;

3.2.3	the proposal will aim to give European telescopes a common "look
and feel'. This commonality will make it easier to apply for and execute
programmes across a range of facilities without having to become familiar
with multiple software packages that look very different but which all do
basically the same thing. Clearly common data reduction tools and
archiving facilities are desirable and should be implemented as a natural
feature of the virtual observatory;

3.2.4	the proposal will provide an opportunity to identify and implement
scientific programs of too?large scale for existing national communities.
For example, to enhance co?ordination between ground based programmes and
space programmes, which through ESA are already on a European scale. New
large programmes can be envisaged which would allow systematic ground
based follow up of  numerous sources detected from space. These are
programmes likely to be too large for individual national research groups
and facilities.

3.3	As a future longer-term benefit to the European astronomical
community the Working Group also considered the possibility of an EU
financed programme of phased replacement of existing smaller facilities
onto the best sites. This might include, but would not be limited to, the
provision of robotic telescopes to replace existing facilities in a cost
effective manner. Noting that many European operated facilities are
already beyond the geographical boundaries of Europe, it may also be
possible to develop extra sites over a range of longitudes to provide a
telescope system with truly global coverage for transients or monitoring
projects.


4.	Implementation Details

4.1	The Working Group envisaged that various national agencies could
provide telescope time to the European pool. The contributions would be at
the discretion of the individual national agency and would be flexible, so
could be adjusted over time to suit programmatic needs. However, it would
be impractical and undesirable to allow any telescope to join. Although
there may be a typical lower limit to the size of telescopes in the
network, the critical criterion for membership should be scientific value.
Each telescope must contribute additional capability to the network. To
ensure that this is achieved an international panel could be created to
establish minimum scientific standards to justify continuing participation
in the network. It was suggested that any European telescope meeting the
required standard could participate, provided access is subject to
rigorous scientific competition.

4.2	The creation of such a network would create a European telescope
market place, which drew out the differences in competitiveness in the
telescopes and allowed evolution of the telescope/instrument suites based
on scientific need, rather than short term national funding  issues. The
network would stimulate natural selection between facilities ensuring
continuous improvement in research quality.

4.3	The Working Group noted that while many European telescopes are in
theory open to applicants from other countries, different scientific
philosophies and styles often place an applicant from outside a typical
user community at a subtle but no less real disadvantage. It was proposed
that time allocation for the European network would be via a single time
allocation process, rather than delegating this task to national bodies,
to ensure fairness and transparency of the allocation process. Multi?site,
science based (rather than facility based) proposals would thus be both
possible and encouraged.  It was hoped that this would avoid the
possibility of double jeopardy when proposing to multiple time allocation
committees. 

4.4	The Working Group considered the management model for this
process.  It noted that cost?effective management models were available
for the implementation of such a network, either in or out of the present
OPTICON framework. Whichever model was chosen, and more than one was
likely to be proposed, the model should minimise overhead cost in
organising the programme.

4.5	The Working Group estimated a cost of the order of 7M Euros per
year (or 8.5M Euros if the ESO La Silla site was included).  This would
provide funding for operations at a level of 20%, including overheads,
travel etc, for all main telescopes in the network, at an eventual steady
state. (Note that 20% figure of time donated to the pool is a planning
assumption, individual facilities may contribute more or less time as they
wish and the contributed fraction can naturally evolve with time).

4.6	It was understood that the network would inevitably comprise
facilities with significant variability in weather and other observing
conditions. To prevent such factors deterring applications to what may be
perceived as less desirable sites it was proposed that European time 
be allocated as programmes or completed observing hours, rather than as
whole nights on specific dates. This flexible, or queue scheduled,
approach had been shown to achieve a higher rate of high priority
programme completion compared with traditional observing on a number of
facilities.

4.7	The principle would require a level of service observing at
observatories which is likely to be higher than presently supported, and
so will require extra EU resources. However, this could create an
opportunity to offer short term (1?3 year) positions to young researchers
who could act as service observers at major facilities, while at the same
time conducting their own programmes of research (the UKIRT telescope for
example has young support staff with significant research allocations in
addition to their operational roles). However, the proposal should
encourage an appropriate balance of traditional visitor observing to
provide additional  training opportunities.  It will stimulate scientific
mobility as an essential part of the network's operation. The Working
Group noted that Central European astronomers strongly endorse these
goals.

5	Co?ordination of Instrumentation Development

5.1	The Working Group discussed the merits of a European network as a
natural opportunity to co?ordinate instrument developments. Bilateral
agreements, for example on telescope time swapping to reduce the
instrument complement at individual observatories, were considered to be
extremely desirable for some partners. The Working Group agreed that such
schemes could be naturally implemented in the larger OPTICON scheme. 

5.2	The Working Group had conducted an extensive survey of
instrumentation available at European facilities (available at
http://www.astro?opticon.org). This allowed the types of instruments of
greatest interest to the OPTICON community to be identified and their
deployment across the network to be optimised. The facility Directors
agreed to consider further ways by which the aims of this aspect of the
proposal might be best realised, e.g. through bilateral arrangements which
might then be extended to include other facilities.

6.	Management Model

6.1	The Working Group was keen to ensure that a minimum overhead would
be required for the operation of the network. Since individual sites will
continue to manage themselves, the primary new task will be to manage the
international TAC and manage the financing of travel. At least two options
were identified for astronomers to obtain travel and subsistence expenses.
These were either by the transfer of funds to relevant national agencies
or to a central travel agent organisation. Both models currently exist.


6.2	Due care would be required to ensure that the resources reach the
intended recipients and that, where necessary, advances can be made to
enable the purchase of, e.g., plane tickets. There would also be a need
for adequate feedback for financial reporting. The Working Group estimated
3?5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) would be required for this office.

6.3	For transfer of resources to the telescope operators the Working
Group envisaged a banded pricing structure per night of allocation to the
network.  For example, Cost band 1 (typically a 3?4m telescope): 2 service
astronomers per facility (0.15M EURO per year per institute) 20% shared
operational cost 0.5M EURO per year per institute.  Cost band 2 (typically
a 1.5?2.5m telescope): 20?50% shared operational costs (0.25M EURO per
year per institute as differential cost to operate a 2m class telescope at
an existing site assuming a larger telescope in full operation).  As an
example, operation of the Telescope Bernard Lyot at Pic du Midi costs
approximately 0.9 Million Euros per year.  During the implementation phase
facilities would need to agree their operational costs on a per night, or
per hour, basis. 

6.4	It was expected that repayment from EU funds would follow
automatically with the allocation of peer reviewed European observing
time. A resource distribution based on scientific time allocation removes
any need for subjective a priori financial allocations between facilities

7	Education Aspects

7.1	Members of the Working Group agreed that the future of astronomy
lay in access not only to world-class facilities but also to virtual
observatories and computing infrastructure. To exploit these opportunities
effectively it was suggested that Europe needs a community which is fully
conversant with these new technologies. This is especially true in the
countries of central Europe where astronomers have not had  access to
modern facilities, and is always true for the next generation of
scientists still under training.

7.2	The Working Group noted that any proposal to use the medium-sized
facilities for educational purposes should have a strong link to other
OPTICON interests in the development of a Virtual Observatory.

7.3	The Working Group envisaged a programme focussed on practical
training at observatories for both Ph.D. students and aimed at those in
secondary (age 11-18) education, both teachers and students. 

7(i)	Ph.D. Students and young astronomers

7.4	It was agreed that to obtain the best possible performance from a
telescope observation often requires intimate knowledge of how such
instrumentation actually works. To provide an adequate understanding of
what is actually happening in the data gathering process students and
young researchers should be given the opportunity for hands-on experience
on research facilities. Background theoretical understanding is assumed.
Real teaching experience however shows that 

hands-on instrumentation operation has two substantial benefits;  it
enhances real understanding and it identifies those individuals with an
interest in high-technology instrumentation.  These individuals can then
be further trained for careers in research or high-tech industry.This
would utilise the larger, better sited medium sized (2 metre class)
telescopes with modern instrumentation, where the additional overheads of
interacting directly with the hardware and the technical staff are
acceptable to the observatory. Summer schools, typically lasting 2 weeks,
during which just such training is provided, are already in existence and
could be used as a model for an EU-funded scheme. During these schools the
students go through whole process of selecting a suitable instrument for a
small project, using it on a telescope and then reducing the resulting
data.

7.5	One additional aim of these schools might be to provide training
for astronomers from the associated EU states so they can compete for
access to these facilities on a fair basis.

7.6	As an example, an existing summer school programme presently costs
about 0.005M Euros per student including travel and accommodation. If it
is assumed there are 1500 active astronomers in the associated EU states
and it is wished to provide hands-on experience for 10% of them per year,
then the scheme needs to accommodate 150 people/year.  This will require
10 courses of 2 weeks each per year on a continuing decade long basis.  To
deliver an effective programme requires a small ratio of students to
advisors during the course, plus a number of visiting lectures to provide
diversity of scientific topics.  It is estimated that this will require 5
staff tutors for each course of 15 participants.  

7.7	For 10 courses this would require 0.75M Euros per year for
participant travel, plus 3 months of telescope time on suitable 2m class
telescopes.  In addition 2 astronomer years per year would be required to
conduct the courses, plus 0.5 staff years for administration and to
provide sufficient visiting lecturers to provide a diverse scientific
experience. There would also be a continuing need to run the courses for
new students coming into the education system for the first time, (say 50
students ? 3 courses? per year costing 0.25M Euros plus 1 month of
telescope time).

7.8	It will be necessary to ensure that the proposal provides adequate
resources to pay active scientists to act as tutors/visiting lecturers,
and that the rules allow this to be done. Relevant experience is available
from the International Space University and other University alumni and
the extensive experience of the EU TMR programme to show that activities
of this type produce long?lasting  and productive scientific and
technological collaborations.  

7(ii)	Inspiring Schoolchildren

7.9	The Working Group understood that extensive documentary evidence
shows that throughout Europe there has been a dramatic decline in students
studying physical sciences. It is also well documented that astronomy
motivates young people to study science. Members agreed that this could be
ably achieved by providing access to research  facilities for example by
linking classrooms to robotic telescopes using wide?band links to
telescopes on very distant sites, essentially remote
real?time observing.

7.10	Dr Murdin described one example of this, the UK Faulkes telescope
project.  This aims to provide direct classroom access to a 2m class
robotic telescope situated in a time zone away from the school to allow
daytime access to nighttime observing. The scale of the potential market
for   such a service was acknowledged to be daunting. In the UK alone
85,000 schools could compete for 3500 hours of telescope time each year on
each of two telescopes. However, this pressure may be alleviated by
operating a service observing scheme, delivering a very limited number of
images to schools in slightly slower time.  Both the Faulkes Telescopes
and a parallel project, the 2m Liverpool Telescope, will also work this
way.

7.11	It was recognised that perhaps the greatest challenge is getting
teachers involved and committed and raising teacher confidence and morale.
One scheme, suggested by the Working Group, was to link suitable science
teachers to individual astronomers via a project in which science teachers
join astronomers working in their local area, who have been allocated time
on major telescopes. One specific model for such a scheme was described.
This model provides educators with funds to make a brief visits to the
astronomers' home institutions for an explanation of the projects and to
integrate travel arrangements. One teacher would travel along with each
observing team and participate in the observing. This would provide ample
opportunities to interact with the astronomer to discuss how astronomy is
done, to gain an insight into the process and build personal
relationships. These relationships could be useful in later years when the
teacher needed to interact with an astronomy professional, for example to
obtain specific information or to get a speaker at school career
activities.  It would also in general expand the teachers' horizons.

7.12	It was estimated that this project would require funds for travel,
say 500 visits per year at 0.002M Euros, spread amongst 5?10
observatories.  It would also require the provision of specialist staff at
some observatories to provide the visiting teacher with additional
educational opportunities during the site visit and to help them make the
most of the opportunity while not presenting an extra, scientifically
distracting task for the astronomer. It would be necessary to fund the
provision of material relevant to the educational aspects of the project .
It may also be necessary to compensate the education agency for the loss
of a week of teacher time per visit. 

7.13	Another possibility would be to have astronomers and educators to
define dedicated projects which are of value for the astronomer's research
project but also easy to use in the teaching environment. Light?curves or
morphological observations for example, which do not involve too much
specialisation. These could receive dedicated allocations of telescope
time on medium sized telescopes which would be supported by
astronomer/teacher pairs who would observe together. This activity might
not be just a way to provide data to schools, but also to enhance the
teacher motivation and experience of doing modern science so they can
communicate this excitement to their students. The project would then have
to provide resources to the observatory to provide the allocation of
telescope time required for the programme.

Such a programme has already been proven successfully in France, but was
limited by both funding and  telescope availability.

7.14	The working Group felt that such a scheme would be astronomer
limited, i.e. there may be insufficient astronomers to support the number
of potential teachers. For planning purposes it estimated that there could
be 10 projects per year per country allocating 1 week of time per project.
For 20 countries that would requires 200 weeks per year and 4 dedicated
telescopes plus travel costs, i.e. 0.4M Euros.  Such a scheme could
provide a useful training role for existing  facilities and would offer
the option of phasing in newer, dedicated facilities over the lifetime of
the project. 

7.15	The nominated teachers would be required, as part of their
selection for the programme, to demonstrate how they would use the
experience and information gained to distribute this experience to other
science teachers within their community. This would achieve a significant
multiplication factor propagating the benefits though the local education
community.

7.16	The Working Group also noted that giving access to programmes of
real?time solar observing would also fit with typical school schedules,
like the use of night?time remote telescopes located 8?10 time zones away
around the world.

8.	Next Steps

8.1	Professor Gilmore said that a draft proposal would be drawn up in
the next month or so, drawing together the ideas and suggestions which had
been discussed at this meeting. This would be achieved with the assistance
of Working Group members, and circulated for comment.  Members were also
encouraged to discuss these ideas with their colleagues and with those who
represented their interests in EU matters.	Action: Professor Gilmore,
Members

8.2	The need for broad advertising for the aims and programme of
OPTICON,  through whatever means e.g. brochures, web page, articles in
popular publications etc. was highlighted.  It was proposed that articles
be considered for the EAS Newsletter, Astronomy and Geophysics etc. Dr
Davies agreed to contact the various national societies, with Working
Group members' assistance, to seek ways by which OPTICON might be
advertised more widely. Professor Gilmore agreed to work with the EU to
complete the proposed brochure and to consider a separate brochure to be
produced by OPTICON. Dr Davies would also encourage organisations to
create links to the newly set-up OPTICON website. He would draw up designs
for an OPTICON logo to be added to the site for circulation and approval
from the Partners.
						 		Action:
Professor Gilmore, Dr Davies

9.	Date of Next Meeting

9.1	It was agreed that there should be at least one further meeting of
the Working Group to work through an advanced draft of the proposal.  This
was provisionally scheduled for 21-22 September 2001, in Toulouse or
Tarbes hosted by the Observatoire Midi-Pyrinnies.