The ASTRONET Infrastructure Roadmap

1
The ASTRONET Infrastructure Roadmap
Mike Bode Astrophysics Research Institute,
Liverpool JMU, UK (and many others ...)
2
Outline

• Background
• Panels and Working Group
• Programme of Work
• Interrelationships and Initial Findings
• Concluding Remarks

3

• Large projects proposed for the next 10-20
  years in astronomy constitute ?? billion
• EU only provide for a few of this cost the
  funding agencies the rest
• ASTRONET was thus established to help
  national funding agencies to take science-based,
  rational, coordinated decisions for the long term
  benefit of European astronomy - and, at a higher
  level, to help unlock further necessary resource
  for our science

4
Developing the Roadmap

Brief To assemble a plan for the development of
the infrastructures that will enable European
Astronomy to deliver the Science Vision -
Taking the Science Vision as the point of
departure - Covering both ground
space-based facilities - Including AVO,
(super)computing, theory, HR issues,
outreach, education and training, industrial
links - Incorporating existing ESO, ESA
(etc.) plans as far as possible, and having a
global perspective - Fitting within reasonable
budgetary envelopes schedules! Got
underway in earnest Autumn 2006
5
Roadmap Panels (Chairs, Co-chairs)
A. high energy astrophysics, astroparticle
astrophysics, gravitational waves Guenther
Hasinger, Patrizia Caraveo B. UVOIR and
radio/mm astronomy Michael Grewing, Laurent
Vigroux C. solar telescopes, solar system
missions, laboratory studies Mats Carlsson,
Therese Encrenaz) D. theory, computing
facilities and networks, virtual
observatory Francoise Combes, Paolo
Padovani E. education, recruitment and
training, public outreach Rosa Maria Ros, Bob
Fosbury


6
INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP PANEL MEMBERS
Panel B
Panel A
7
INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP PANEL MEMBERS
Panel C
Panel D
8
INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP PANEL MEMBERS
Panel E
9
Roadmap Working Group
Chair Mike Bode Ex-Officio Members
Chairs and Co-chairs of the 5 Panels Members at
Large Catherine Turon (Observatoire de Paris),
Xavier Barcons (CSIC-UC), Jean Clavel
(ESA-ESTEC), Phil Diamond (RadioNet), Gerry
Gilmore (OPTICON),Thijs van der Hulst
(Groningen), Guy Monnet (ESO), Hans-Walter Rix
(MPIA), Ian Robson (UK ATC), Guy Wormser
(CNRS/IN2P3) Assistant Scientists Maria Cruz
(Liverpool JMU), Frank Molster (NWO) gt 60
people involved (including Panel members)


10
Working Group
Role is to - assist the Panels in their
tasks - ensure consistency of approach and
thoroughness - receive and review the reports
of the Panels - synthesise these to optimise
the delivery of the Science Vision 12
February 2008 workshop held with the funding
agencies to ensure that the Roadmap is infused
with realism - refinements to the draft completed
as a result, prior to release for wide discussion
early May



11
Programme of Work

• 7 Working Group and 26 Panel meetings held since
  March 2007.
• Panels A-C Questionnaire sent to 112 facilities
  (gt90 returns by early July 2007 facilities list
  posted on ASTRONET website).
• Evaluation template formulated and completed by
  each assigned Panel rapporteur for each facility.
  
• Evaluation Criteria developed to give first-pass
  rankings, then each facility further discussed
  and judgements refined (e.g. in the light of the
  ESA Cosmic Vision results).
• Science Vision launched 28 Sept 2007 ESA Cosmic
  Vision results available 17 October 2007 to
  Panels.

12
Criteria for Inclusion in Ranking (of Panels A-C)

• Main focus is on future facilities (includes
  well-defined major upgrades and significant
  operational prolongations).
• Only facilities with a significant European
  content (likely funding requirement) and well
  enough developed to be able to be judged
  adequately are included.
• European funding requirement gt 10M capital cost
  and/or gt 10M operational cost over 5 years
  (unless special reason).
• Only those facilities where a major European
  funding decision expected to be required from
  2009- were included.
• It is however better to have too much than too
  little information overall!

13
Evaluation Framework

• Broad categories of prioritisation (High, Medium
  and Low only High normally discussed in
  detail in final report other facilities
  may be included for context and some smaller
  scale current facilities have been grouped).
• Sub-divided into cost categories
• Small 10M-50M Medium 50M-400M Large
  gt400M
• (Small cf. last Decadal Survey for
  Ground-based Medium, Large fits with Cosmic
  Vision wrt M missions and Flagships for
  Space-based, including instruments)
• Timescale division (to full operation)
  Short-term (-2015) Medium Term (2016-2020)
  Long-term (2020)
• Evaluation criteria included Scientific Impact
  (relation to delivering SV), Uniqueness, European
  Involvement, User Base, Industrial Relevance
  (TRL) - gave a first-pass ranked list

14
Panels D and E

• Terms of reference somewhat different from Panels
  A, B, C
• Specific questions included in the questionnaire
  to facilities, but also undertook information
  gathering as detailed in Chapters 6 and 7 of the
  draft Report
• Panel D gave members responsibility for specific
  areas
• Panel E sub-divided into Task Groups
• Information exchange with other Panels

15
Interrelationships


- ESO and ESA representatives on the WG -
Similarly for OPTICON and RadioNet -
EuroPlaNET representation on Panel C (and on WG
in initial phases) - Euro-VO representation on
Panel D and WG - EAAE representation on Panel E
and WG - Information exchange with ASPERA,
including round-table meetings - ESFRI links
(but need to be strengthened)
16
Initial Overall Prioritisation (A-C)

• Ground-based, Large Scale
• ELT and SKA (phasing important)
• Ground-based, Medium Scale
• EST
• CTA
• KM3NeT
• Ground-based, Small scale
• Wide Field, Multiplexed Spectrograph (8-10m
  tels)
• ( Optimisation of access to existing telescopes
  Solar, 2-4m and 8-10m optical/IR, radio and
  mm-submm)

17
Initial Prioritisation (cont.)

• Space-Based, Large Scale
• LISA and XEUS
• TANDEM/LAPLACE
• ExoMars
• ( Darwin, FIRI and PHOIBOS for further
  development)
• Space-Based, Medium Scale
• GAIA Data Processing and Analysis
• EUCLID
• Cross-scale, PLATO, Simbol-X and SPICA
• Marco Polo
• (Plus continued European contribution to
  operation of XMM-Newton, Integral, HST, Cluster,
  STEREO, Hinode)

18
Other Recommendations are made in the areas of

• Laboratory Astrophysics
• Theory, Computing and VO
• Education, recruitment and training, public
  outreach and industrial links
• (see very detailed summaries in Panel C, D and E
  reports and presentations tomorrow for all panels)

19
Outline timetable

• Appointment of Panel (Co-)Chairs and constitution
  of Working Group Jan 2007
• Appointment of Panel Members and schedule first
  Panel meetings Mar 2007
• First Draft Panel Reports
  Oct 2007
• First Draft Working Group Report
  Dec 2007
• Workshop with Agencies
  Feb 2008
• Public Draft Roadmap released, forum open early
  May 2008
• Roadmap Symposium (Liverpool) 16-19 Jun
  2008
• Online forum closes 4 July 2008
• Final Panel and Working Group meetings
  July-Aug 2008
• Final Roadmap Document published by 31 Oct
  2008

Implementation Phase
20
About This Symposium

• An opportunity to present our conclusions so far,
  but
• Do they make sense?
• How far away from reality are we?
• What has been missed?
• How do we proceed from here?
• Note opportunity for very short additional
  presentations in discussion sessions of each
  Panel - see appropriate Panel Chair/Co-chair in
  advance to arrange

An interesting (and hopefully enjoyable) few days
ahead!