Thirty Meter Telescope Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee Feb 6, 2007 Edward C. Stone

TMT Precursor Studies Independently-conceived & independently-reviewed, point designs representing ~$6M total effort CELT (UC+Caltech) VLOT (Canada) GSMT (NOAO/Gemini) PUBLIC/PRIVATE/INTERNATIONAL partnership formed- June 2003 –Single reference design established by TMT in Nov 04

TMT Reference Design 30m filled aperture, highly segmented Ritchey Chretien two-mirror telescope f/1 primary f/15 final focus Field of view 15 arcmin Elevation axis in front of the primary Wavelength coverage 0.31 – 28 µm Operational zenith angle range 1° thru 65° Instruments (and their associated AO systems) are located on large Nasmyth platforms, addressed by an articulated tertiary mirror. Both seeing-limited and adaptive optics observing modes AO system requirements and architecture defined First generation instrument requirements defined

Overview Telescope Mounted Systems M1 segment and its support assembly M2 assembly M3 assembly Laser Guide Star Facility

Primary Mirror Segments TMT segmented primary is a natural evolution of the Keck mirror Keck: 36 segments, 1.8m dia TMT: 492 segments, 1.4m dia (size independently selected by ESO) Polishing and segment module fabrication must be “mass produced” to cost and quality TMT is working with several industrial partners to compete production design, testing and cost There are opportunities to save costs by coordinating with ESO Keck segment

Keck and Gemini Laser Guide Star Facilities The Adaptive Optics Era is Here!

TMT.TEL.PRE REL01 KECK Courtesy: L. Sromovsky HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

TMT.TEL.PRE REL01

73 x 73 Actuator TMT AO Deformable Mirror

Tested Prototype Meets TMT Performance

Enclosure Configuration Calotte chosen : - Structurally efficient, most cost-effective - Minimum vignetting and best wind protection

TMT AO & Instrument Feasibility Studies North American community invited to propose TMT instruments in early 2005 –41 institutions responded, 16 collaborative proposals emerged 12 feasibility studies were supported –NFIRAOS (HIA) –IRIS (UCLA and Caltech) –MIRES (NOAO and U Hawaii) –WFOS (HIA) and GLAO at Caltech –PFI (LLNL, JPL, U de Montreal) –HROS: 2 studies - UCSC and U Colorado –IRMOS: 2 studies - U Florida and Caltech ~ 200 scientists and engineers involved at 34 US, 10 Canadian, and 2 French institutions

Site Testing Robotic data collection underway at 3 sites in Chile, San Pedro Martir (Mexico), and Mauna Kea, HI The most comprehensive astronomical site survey work ever undertaken Site Requirements Document: –includes data evaluation/figure of merit strategy –primarily astronomical “weather” data under consideration: clear nights, atmospheric stability, mean temperature and temperature variations, etc. Site data evaluated quarterly Clear differences between the sites are now evident Final site selection in 2008

TMT Design & Development Phase Jun 2003: Caltech & UC (CELTCO), AURA & Canada form TMT Board and agree to pursue equal shares of funding for DDP Apr 2004: DDP begins: Gary Sanders appointed PM, HQ in Pasadena Moore Foundation $35M, ACURA $17.5M, AURA $17.5M NSF Grant Nov 2004: Established Reference Design May 2006: Conceptual Design Review Sep 2006: Cost Review Nov 2006: NSF announced AURA’s withdrawal from TMT to assume role as GSMT Program Manager Jan 2006: Restructured DDP

External Advisory Panel Reviews Panel -Bill Frazer, Chair –Reinhard Genzel, MPE –Roger Davies, Oxford –David Tytler, UCSD –Hilton Lewis, Keck –Peter Gray, Gemini –Paul Gilbert, Parsons Brinkerhoff –Torben Andersen, Lund –Mark Sarazin, ESO –Mark Warner, ATST –Jose Castro, GTC –Bob Fugate, USAF –Mariana de Kock, SALT –Mark Colavita, JPL Keck Conceptual Design Review May Evaluate requirements, whether reference design meet requirements, technical feasibility, risk etc Observers: NSF, NRC Canada, Moore Foundation, Japan, GMT Cost Review Sep Assess cost estimation methods & contingency Observers: NSF, NRC Canada, Moore Foundation

Cost Review Report “The Panel was extremely impressed by the quantity and quality of work that has been accomplished since the CoDR in May. You have a really excellent project team! In general, the cost estimating methodology is credible, and the risks appear to be well addressed in developing the contingency fund. The operations model is generally appropriate, and is a suitable basis for further planning.”

What’s Ahead Complete Design & Development Phase (mid 2009) Develop and review implementation proposal (mid 2007) Expand current three-way partnership to realize the required funding for the facility, instruments/AO, and operations (public, private, or international) Select site (mid 2008) Construction phase ( ) First light with full mirror (2016) Initial science nights (2016)

Goals Timely implementation (JWST overlap, ESO 42m telescope) Justify readiness and cost of GSMT to establish its priority in next Decadal Survey (2009) Realize a public/private/international partnership for GSMT Develop an NSF role during initial implementation that doesn’t require commitment of MREFC funds

A Way Forward Develop criteria and process for selecting the GSMT design (including operations model, implementation approach, and funding plan) that will be evaluated and prioritized by the Decadal Survey –Criteria and processMay 15, 2007 –Submit Implementation Planmid 2008 –Selectionmid 2009 Robustly fund the current AURA grant for the design development of TMT and GMT through selection (funding to date has been limited) Establish follow-on GSMT technology development program, leading to major equipment construction (e.g., instrumentation, AO) at later time (2013?)

Distant Galaxies – TMT+AO Credit: M. Bolte M. Bolte Hubble Deep Field Hubble Resolution TMT Resolution with Adaptive Optics