Report on TSIPFY 2002

1
Report on TSIP/FY 2002

• Todd Boroson/Jeremy Mould/Alan Dressler
• Presentation to ACCORD
• September 30, 2002

2
History

• Revision of Facility Instrumentation Program
  proposed by McCray committee
• Telescope System Instrumentation Program highest
  priority medium-sized initiative of AASC
• Factor of two between funds for instruments and
  value of nights a fundamental element of program
• Context of TSIP is system of ground-based O/IR
  telescopes, which is perspective advocated by
  AASC policy chapter.

3
Ground Rules FY 2002

• 4 Million in program
• NSF asked NOAO to administer
• Rules developed with input from AASC
  recommendations, ACCORD, NSF
• 2 types of proposals
• Instrument telescope time equal in value to 50
  of funds granted
• Improvement telescope time equal in value to
  100 of funds granted
• Limited to telescopes of aperture 6-m and larger

4
Timeline FY 2002

• AO issued December 5, 2001
• Letters of intent due January 18, 2002
• 3 letters received
• Review panel recruited based on expertise and
  non-conflict of interest panel approved by NSF
• A. Dressler (chair OCIW), T. Greene (NASA/Ames),
  D. Fabricant (CfA), K. Hodapp (U.Hawaii), C.
  Stubbs (U. Wash.), T. Herter (Cornell), C.
  Pilachowski (Indiana U. ), D. Richstone (U.
  Michigan)
• Proposals due March 29, 2002
• Page limit increased to 30 pages at request of
  proposers
• 3 proposals received
• Panel met once by telecon (April 29, 2002) and
  once in person (May 11, 2002)

5
Panel review outcome

• OSIRIS proposal ranked first
• Scientifically interesting new capability
• Relatively low risk
• Access to Keck telescopes
• Fully funded to completion
• KIRMOS second
• Distinction between second and third close
• Ambitious and interesting instrument
• Early work should emphasize reduction of risk
• Funding for one year only to establish viability
• MODS third
• Proposal solid but not so exciting
• Prospect of long wait for telescope time
  adversely affected ranking

6
General Panel recommendations

• Proposal instructions should be changed to
  increase emphasis on technical description of
  instrument
• Each year, the review panel should assess ongoing
  TSIP-funded projects
• No consensus on changing the 6-meter aperture
  limit
• Schedule should be advanced so that funding can
  be provided earlier in fiscal year

7
Timeline, continued

• TSIP report sent to NSF on June 19, 2002
• Boroson and Dressler visited NSF, presented
  results on June 26, 2002
• NSF approved initiation of negotiations
• MOU with CARA for handling of telescope time
  signed July 29
• Only change from proposal was restoration of
  Directors discretionary time to calculation
• OSIRIS held CDR August 8-9, 2002
• CARA invited TSIP participation
• Review attended by Boroson and Trueblood
• OSIRIS contract signed approved August 26
• KIRMOS contract signed approved September 13

8
Items of interest in contracts

• Contracts are between AURA/NOAO and CARA
• Payments made annually (in advance)
• Effort made to adjust specific oversight
  activities to mesh with processes desired or
  already in place within CARA
• Monthly, quarterly reports that are already part
  of CARAs management process will be distributed
  to TSIP tech. Representative
• Semi-annual report to be written by TSIP tech.
  Representative and publicly disseminated
• CARA required to produce annual status report for
  TSIP review panel

9
Cost of administering TSIP

• FY 2002 total 35,500
• Salaries (Boroson, Brouillette, Trueblood)
• Review panel meeting
• Travel to report to NSF
• Travel to OSIRIS CDR
• FY 2003 est. 53K
• Additional time for oversight activities
• Additional travel for oversight activities

10
FY 03 expectations

• Advance schedule
• AO to be released early October, 2002
• Proposals due in February 2003
• Expect program funded again at 4M level
• Have advocated increase to 5M/year as
  recommended by AASC
• Will try to use as much of first year review
  panel as is appropriate
• Proposal/instructions modified in accordance with
  review panel suggestions