The STELLA control system 2nd workshop on robotic telescopes, Torremolinos, Spain, June 7th, 2011 First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes. T.Granzer, M. Weber, K.G. Strassmeier, et al.

What is STELLA? Two robotic 1.2m, f/8 and f/8.4 Alt/Az telescopes to study STELLar Activity. Observing in fully unattended mode, including safe modes during bad-weather periods. It is intended for long-term observations spanning years, not for short programs. A single instrument per telescope – not a multi-purpose telescope. First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Where is it? STELLA Tenerife / Teide 2400m Altitude AIP/IAC First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes. STELLA

Two telescopes, two instruments. Which instruments? Two telescopes, two instruments. SES Echelle Spectrograph, fiber-fed, R55000  380-860nm, fixed format WiFSIP Wide-field imager, 22’ FoV, Strømgren, Johnson, and Sloan filters plus H 4kx4k STA chip, 0.32arcsec/pixel First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Current status? STELLA 1&2: …lots of experience & algorithms (java) texp=40 min HAT 12 p, r’=12.5m, 23.4.2011 Current status? GRB110402, co-added 60x20sec STELLA 1&2: Simultaneous high-res spectra (R~55000) and wide-field imager (22’x22’, full Johnson, Strömgren and Sloan filter set + H). Extreme long-term and fast-reaction modes. Exclusive access. Fully reduced data (plus data products) First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes. …lots of experience & algorithms (java) HD 1, V=7m43, combined spectrum

How? Generic publisher/subscriber schema. Events are generated in the publisher and passed to registered subscribers. Advantages: Subscribers may be introduced as needed. They can be incorporated into the running system. Bugs in this new software will not back-react on the core system as they run on a different virtual machine. First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Entire communication is based on this schema: Example: During routine operation, an error-list in html-format appears to be convenient. An Error-subscriber is created that updates an html-error list. The new error-listener registers interest on all relevant error sources without restart of the system. Entire communication is based on this schema: Weather sensors produce weather-events. Commands of the system core are command-events, further split into telescope-commands, ccd-commands etc. The replies from the peripheral are reply events, split into acknowledge and done events. Error and status messages are error-events. The CCDs produces data-events.

Network-layout First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Communication cycle First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

SCS, the core Carry out the command submission Commands are sent to communication handlers Yields actual command sequence by filling target data into template Target defines observing template All observable targets, user supplied Picks target with currently highest priority First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Work-flow Split into parallel and sequential tasks. Add a watchdog for execution hangs. Allow errors to alter the sequence. First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes. We use an XML-based sequence definition

Parallel/sequential Reference to target type 1 <Sequence type="single"> 2 <Step> 8 <Task id="move"> 9 <Condition>Task_open &AND; telescope_finished</Condition> 10 <Command id="main">MOVE_TELESCOPE</Command> 11 <Complete>DONE_MOVE_TELESCOPE:main</Complete> 12 </Task> 13 <Task id="find"> 14 <Condition>on_group &AND; adapter_finished</Condition> 15 <Command id="main">FIND_ADAPTER</Command> 16 <Complete>DONE_FIND_ADAPTER:main</Complete> 17 </Task> 18 <Task id="acquire"> 19 <Condition> 20 DONE_MOVE_TELESCOPE:main &AND; DONE_FIND_ADAPTER:main+1000 21 </Condition> 22 <Command id="main">ACQUIRE_ADAPTER</Command> 23 <Complete>DONE_ACQUIRE_ADAPTER:main</Complete> 24 </Task> 25 </Step> Reference to target type Pure sequential execution Parallel execution allowed Requirement to commence task What to do This task is finished From target definition First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Loops? From dusk sky flat Condition sine qua non 1 <Step while="FlatExposureTime <= MaximalExposure &AND; Sequenceloop < 5 &AND; SolHeight > -10.0"> 2 <Task id="abort"> 3 <Condition>FlatExposureTime < 0.75*MinimalExposure</Condition> 4 <Broadcast>stella.error.SkyFlatAbort</Broadcast> ... 12 </Step> Unexpected condition occurs First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes. Issue internal error

Defining targets XML-based target description. Astrometric target data and field-of-view are filled in from the (local) UCAC-2 catalogue or using SOAP on VizieR. Instrumentation requirements must be specified by user. User might add supplementary observing constraints. First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Run-time resolved Unique reference for sequencer 1 <Setup id=“exposure"> 2 <Constant class="java.lang.Double"> 3 <Constantname>ExposureTime</Constantname> 4 <Constantvalue>3600.0</Constantvalue> 5 </Constant> 6 </Setup> 22 <Object id="main"> 23 <ObjectName>35 Cnc</ObjectName> 24 <Position> 25 <RA>128.83102292</RA> 26 <Dec>19.59006278</Dec> 31 <V>6.55</V> 32 <B-V>0.681</B-V> 33 </Position> 34 <FieldOfView> 35 <RA>128.7640763888889</RA> 36 <Dec>19.51677527777778</Dec> 41 <V>9.28</V> 43 </FieldOfView> Either choose from name or tag First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

Target selection Variables: AltTarget, AzTarget, Airmass, Elongation, SolZ, MoonDistance, MoonHeight, MoonPhase, Seeing, TauTarget, SiderealTime, JD, etc. Unique variable name <Select> <Requires> Roofopen &AND; GuidingAvailable &AND; Goodweather </Requires> <Constraint> <Variable>AltTarget</Variable> <Min>25.0000</Min> </Constraint> <Merit> <Timeslot class="stella.xml.OneObservationMerit"> </Timeslot> <Gain class="stella.xml.WindowMerit"> <Constant class="java.lang.Double"> <Constantname>weight</Constantname> <Constantvalue>1.0</Constantvalue> </Constant> </Gain> </Merit> </Select> Parameter range required Java class name First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes. Override defaults/ supply parameters

Target execution User notification per e-mail Target re-schedule rules <Address>tgranzer@aip.de</Address> <Notify> <Onfirstpick></Onfirstpick> <Oncomplete></Oncomplete> </Notify> </Email> … <Exception for="this"> <Block>TARGET_AMBIGUOUS</Block> <Delay>TARGET_NOT_FOUND</Delay> <Abort>TARGET_NOT_AVAILABLE</Abort> </Exception> <Daughter>hd3712_rad.xml</Daughter> <Daughter>hd4128_rad.xml</Daughter> <Daughter>hd12929_rad.xml</Daughter> <Daughter>hd18884_rad.xml</Daughter> <Daughter>hd29139_rad.xml</Daughter> <Successor>calibration.xml</Successor> User notification per e-mail Target re-schedule rules Choose sub-target from list First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes. This target will always follow

Portable? What has to be done? 100% java, should run almost anywhere. Define possible commands. Put them together to meaningful sequences in an sequencer XML-file. Implement the command servers (telescope, CCD, guider, …). Configure the SCS. First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

How? First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

The STELLA control system Rad.vel. The STELLA control system 51 Peg, P=4.23077d, A=100m/s peak-to-peak Currently at STELLA-I, Moved to STELLA-II in early 2010, Upgrade in late 2010 First, why do we want to do robotic astronomy in the first place? In a time of shrinking budgets, costs if of course always a concern, and the simple absence of human facilities (toilets, beds, restaurants) reduces the costs. But scientifically, does robotic observation give us an advantage? Yes, a robot is much more efficient than a human observer. A robot can control a whole set of devices, at least sometimes, in parallel. A robot does not get tired. A robot can change to targets of opportunity faster than a human can. Then, as long as everything is working okay, the data quality will only vary according to weather conditions. No observations will be lost because of an unskilled handling of the instrument. From the scientific programs that run on robotic facilities there is also a big difference to conventional telescopes. A robot will always be as simple as possible to do a certain kind of observation. This means that a robotic telescope will be used, say, for all-sky monitoring. It is easy to see, that this allows for extremely long time bases in the observation-in contrast to the conventional telescopes where observing time is mostly given in sometimes tiny slots to different users. A scientific program where one need, say, one hour of observation every day over a month will never be approved on a classic telescope. And last but not least, this is talking about the future, cross-linking different robotic facilities around the world will allow continuous observations-not inflicted by day/night cycles-of targets. There are some campaigns like MUSICOS for spectroscopy or Whole Earth Telescope for astro-seismology based on classical methods, but true success to this campaigns will probably only come with robotic telescopes.

…and tomorrow? Bochum-University Cerro Armazones ~50% seeing < 1” ~350 clear nights EELT site Move RoboTel in 2012, Plato H- survey (WP 131240) New, ~2m spectroscopic facility, RV<4m/s Would support ESA Plato mission (planet finder, 2000°², 2018) Bochum-University at base of Cerro Armazones Image: R. Chini

…to where? A network provides 24h observation, weather-independency The next natural step (www of telescopes) There are already many existing telescopes, more to come …but… All tries so far marginally successful, only if not heterogeneous. ‘Nice to have’ not an argument, only science is.