SAC meeting August 26, 2010

DATE: August 26, 2010
TIME: 9:00 AM Pacific
(866) 200-5786 from in the US
(303) 218-2281 from outside US
Conference ID: 8762761#
Security code: 4363#


Paul and Mario have offered the following suggestions. Let's make sure there is time in the schedule to accommodate them. Alan U. distributed the Support Agreements
on Aug 2. for both MMIRS and Megacam. Please give them a read before the meeting.

Alan D. has suggested we distribute presentation materials today if 
possible. I will try to
accomodate this request.


    I suggest the following agenda, however, it is so long since I
    thought about it, I probably
    forgotten a lot of things, so input is welcome.

    1. LDSS3 Status, esp. negotiation w/ Durham - Alan U.
    2. AO Timeline & (Brief Status) - Laird or Alan U.
    3. F/5 Planning & Policy - ASz & Paul
    4. Fourstar Status - Eric or Alan U.
    5. Carnegie-Harvard Phasing Camera Experiment - Shec or ASz
    6. Brief updates on FIRE, PISCO & PFS  

Mario Mateo Wrote:

Andy -- I can't make this call, but I have asked Paul to be leader of a 
discussion on f/5 scheduling policy relative to other Clay instruments.  
Please add 10 min or so for that discussion.  Thanks,


Paul Schechter wrote:
> Dear Andy,
> Please add discussion of the MMIRS and Megacam support agreements to
> the agenda.  The SAC must sign off on these before the COUNCIL can
> vote.
> -Paul


Magellan SAC telecon: Aug 26

Participants: E. Berger, A. Szentgyorgyi, P. Schechter, L. Close, A. Uomoto, M. Phillips, D. Osip, A. Weinberger, E. Persson, A. Dressler, S. Shectman

LDSS3 – A. Uomoto

The SAC recommends that LDSS3 be restored as a facility instrument if a deal can be worked out with Durham where Durham is “paid” no more than 4 nights a year.

The Durham exchange ~4 nights/year is not agreed to yet. Carnegie will support hardware & software. Berger will PI with support from Mulchaey. Repair costs will be capped at $25,000/ year. Consortium institutions will only be assessed for actual repair costs. The SAC urges tha Council to approve this arrangement in time for restoration of LDSS3 by January 2011.

Discussion concerning LDSS3:

Schechter: There was no agreement on giving telescope time to Durham.

ASZ: The idea is to bring it back as a facility instrument.

Schechter: Partners cannot be compelled to trade give up telescope time.

Phillips: Council has not signed off on this yet.

Szentgyorgyi: All partners other than MIT are in agreement to trade time for LDSS3. What is MIT’s position?

Schechter: MIT likely to go for 4 nights/year but discussion needed. As a SAC member recommend this, but not with >4 nights/year.

Osip: Can we ask the council to make a decision prior to the 2011A proposal deadline?

Schecter: Is Magic a PI instrument starting next semester? Yes. Where does it go? To share LDSS3 port?

Phillips: MAGIC will become a PI instrument at that time.

Osip: LDSS3 will become primary on the port, with MAGIC scheduled only as time permits.

Szentgyorgyi: Dave/Paul should work to make sure that MAGIC change-over is as smooth as possible (to save time and increase possibility of more frequent changes).

Adaptive Optics (AO) – L. Close

First light for AO at Magellan is Feb 2012; Impressive on-sky results from LBT in the optical suggest that Magellan system will work well and at high Strehl. Big ring being shipped off to Italy for integration. Shell will be brought back to Arizona for aluminization in October; Adaptive secondary tests work to spec. Dec 15-19: fit check at Magellan (mounting dummy ASM; cooling system parameters; cart for transportation to telescope); April 2011: tests in tower (Italy). ATI funding proposal for the visible channel did not go through (proposal will be re-submitted). MIRAC is not a very good commissioning camera (at 10 microns) so thinking of using CLIO for this purpose (JHK, up to 5 microns; 20"x10" FOV) - it will be on for the first ~6 months. MIRAC will still be the facility instrument (perhaps PI science run with CLIO later on if there is interest).

Discussion concerning AO:

Szentgyorgyi: I suggest contacting Debra Fischer for planet work interest usual AO in the optical in context of an ATI proposal. She is has proposed using the Palomar AO system in the optical.

Weinberger: Is there a possibility for leaving CLIO at Magellan?

Close: Maybe. It makes sense since Magellan system is better than MMT. Will depend on performance at Magellan.

Phillips: We need to work out a way to support the AO system - this is not in the budget at the moment. The SAC needs to get the Council to start discussing this (SAC recommendation?)

Close: U of A might possibly submit an MRI for IFU, which may provide finite level of support for AO. Observer support will be required to operate the AO system.

Close: I would like SAC to be "positive" about ATI re-proposal. Such a proposal could support an instrument scientist (postdoc level) to help observers.

Szentgyorgyi: Close & Uomoto should draft a support agreement to outline what level of support will be provided with instrument.

Close: I'll bring in all the required PhDs-level support to initiate AO runs.

Szentgyorgyi: mini-telecon Sep 2 9am PDT to discuss support agreement

F/5 - Szentgyorgyi

The F/5 support agreement has been distributed to the SAC on 2 Aug 2010 t Schecter’s request.

Discussion concerning F/5:

Schechter: IMACS agreement specified support required from observatory. F/5 estimates did not include this information.

Szentgyorgyi: Osip/Phillips should provide a summary of the effort level required from the observatory staff.

Schechter (on behalf of Mateo): The last two F/5 runs impacted use of other Clay instruments during Galactic pole season. The next run should strive to avoid this problem.

Szentgyorgyi: This is a scheduling (Ian) issue.

Shectman: Since F/5 is a single block it tends to end up in the middle of the semester, and therefore hard to avoid this conflict.

Schechter: Why not have it on the telescope at end of 2011A and beginning of 2011B, instead of middle of 2011A (3+3 weeks). Then rotate between end and middle semester.

Shectman: Add guidelines to the call for proposals as to when F/5 is likely to end up on the telescope.

Phillips: The end of 2011B coincides with Christmas/New Year's so best to avoid F/5 change.

The SAC voted to recommend Schechter/Mateo plan and to ask Ian to schedule F/5 at end of 2011A. Information should be provided to observers.

Szentgyorgyi: How long do the F/5 instruments stay at Magellan?

Close: Arizona would like to see MMIRS at MMT.

What's the disadvantage of having the instruments at Magellan?

Shectman: This should be a CfA decision.

Szentgyorgyi: But would instruments be used every semester? We do not want instruments mothballed for extended periods.

Shectman: Once AO is on Clay, there will be too much pressure.

Schechter: I suggest that F/5 should be reduced/eliminated once AO is on the telescope, and it is a CfA issue whether to ship instruments back to MMT.

Shectman/Phillips: There should be only one secondary change per semester, which means either AO or F/5.

ASZ: Let’s table this issue and pick it up at a later point when more info is available

Fourstar - E. Persson


Carnegie shipped detectors+module separately (due to arrive Chile at end of Sept). go on telescope for fit check. first light Dec 13-18. Detectors shipped by air and will arrive late Sept.

Phasing Camera - Shectman

The phasing camera is an experiment toward phasing GMT mirror segments. The NIR camera is similar to one used at Keck for phasing segments. There will be a prototype using pupil masks on the Magellan mirror to simulate gaps in GMT mirrors. This program will not be as extensive as GLAO tests – few nights. It is not a scientific instrument. The required time will come from OCIW/CfA (i.e. GMT partners).

Discussion concerning the phasing camera.

Shectman: The experiment is urgent in order to respond to any skepticism about phasing GMT segments.

Berger: What's the timescale?

Szentgyorgyi: Is the timescale is ~9 months?

Shectman: More like a year or slightly more.

SAC encourages development of this instrument.


Schechter: FIRE USB to optical converter failures; some software revisions

Osip: Will FIRE become non-shared risk on Oct 1?

Berger: Science results already published.

Szentgyorgyi: I have heard another lens got broken in PISCO. Progress seems slow – it seems likely that it will not be delivered sooner than 2011B for Magellan arrival. No requests from the project for telescope time.

Shectman: PFS is in routine operations. The best star radial velocity so far is 66 cm/s over several months. (This is very, very good.)

Next Magellan SAC Face-to-Face Meeting

The date is currently set at 12/13 March 2011. Some group interest in seeing if we can find an alternative date that will accommodate several people that cannot attend.

Another telecon: suggested Nov 18, 12 p.m. EST

Schectman: The Magellan Science Meeting is April 26-28, 2011. Perhaps we can save some time and travel expenses if we met on 25 Apr and wrap up business in one day.

Szentgyorgyi will poll the SAC to see if this will work.