Status and achievements of Opticon FP6 (+FP5) Gerry Gilmore coordinator

OPTICON was the first community-wide cooperation in O-IR european astronomy What did we do right? We built links, defused perceived tensions between countries and observatory communities, and included everyone: this is a good start, largely complete with the enlarged ESO, but most of central Europe is still involved only peripherally We bought together for the first time all European-owned 2-4m telescopes, to promote coordination and efficiency – the science opportunities here are barely started, and worth further development: this should also be a link to central Europe: we lack a strategy here!

OPTICON was the first community-wide cooperation in O-IR european astronomy What did we do right? Ctd We developed community-wide involvement in the ELT projects, helping to build a single program, leading to the Design Study – this remains the primary strategic goal for European OIR astronomy for the future, and has been formally adopted by ESO Council. We helped natural communities to work/plan together – especially interferometry, and some others (UV, s/w) We got some new resources to develop key future technologies - especially adaptive optics and related sensors, and instrument-related smaller items (VPH, KT, etc): this barely touches the vast needs and opportunities here. The small EC funds mean clear focus on 1-2 priorities was essential to achieve anything significant.

What did we do right? All Opticon activities have been a remarkable success. Access works, is managed very well, and is wildly oversubscribed – but it hasn’t really worked across boundaries yet. The JRAs have been a triumph – see later reports – and are all cash-limited, not ideas limited The networks have covered a wide range of work – the ELT network is an example of what can be achieved given resources Probably the biggest success was getting the O-IR community to start acting as a community

ELT Science Case Isobel Hook Highlights of FP6 work Objectives for FP7 Deliverables and required resources

FP6 OPTICON N3.1: ELT Science Case Aim: To develop and promote the ELT science case Planned deliverables: –Web site within first 6 months –1 community Science WG meeting per year –1 smaller meeting (group Chairs) per year –Major science case documents at mid & end point 1 st half of 2006 and end 2009 –Employ a scientist to coordinate this activity –Coordinate with FP6 ELT design study work Work has been successful and going to plan

Highlights from FP6 so far Marseilles 2003 Florence 2004 Web site Science case documents Florence 2005

Highlights from FP6 so far Meetings to date: –2 major + 4 smaller meetings organised by OPTICON –Funding for Europeans to attend several other meetings (e.g. IAU ELT Symposium) –Planning the next major meeting now Science case documents –Top level summary Feb 2005 –Science case book Jun 2005 –[basis for 1 st iteration of requirements] Mailing list, web site –Maintains community involvement Close coordination with Design Study

Role of OPTICON in the E-ELT OPTICON is recognised as the crucial link between the community and the new ESO European ELT project New ESO-OPTICON SWG recently formed –21 members, 50:50 Community:ESO –co-Chairs Isobel Hook & Marijn Franx –Wil provide scientific input to ESO ELT project –Will provide coordination of effort in the community We propose to continue this role into FP7

Role of OPTICON in the E-ELT Recent ESO ELT Standing Review Ctte recommendations include: –Science group should focus on a few (~3) key science cases for promotion of project and development of requirements –Size of telescope should be set by science case –Retention of community involvement and commitment essential This implies –Science case must be developed in detail to guide the project –Science team must involve the community Requires funding for meetings and effort –Science simulations are required in order to set requirements –3 proposed themes: Exo-planets, Galaxy formation, Frontiers of Physics –ESO now plans to devote 1 person to each area –Community should match this through OPTICON

OPTICON: What we can do better Too many partners: in fact this is tiresome for reporting, but desirable for the community. Some better `associate’ role would be desirable to allow inclusiveness but ease admin. – We don’t have too many `members’, but we do have too many `legal partners’. Too many subjects: certainly true. We have the geographical legacy of FP5, rather than a clear subject focus. Are any (more) parts of Opticon ready to split off (Virtual Observatory did this after FP5). Solar astronomy is a particular anomaly. Too few failures: are we being imaginative enough?

Lessons for FP7 JRAs: Focussing on agreed strategic priority developments for the JRAs worked well, and allowed significant matched funding NETWORKS: Including the whole geographic community is desirable, in spite of the admin cost, since noone else is doing that ACCESS: The access program is appreciated, but perhaps too responsive to extant methodologies Some subject areas could earn much better EC support BUDGETS: in practise, it is extremely difficult to implement any flexibility. How can one plan for 7 years of innovation?

Question for FP7 What is the best way to manage Opticon: community- based, or organisation-based?

end

FP7 Resources and Deliverables Deliverables –Updated Science case documents (2 over FP7 period) –Science simulations in each key science area –Regular, small, focussed meetings (~4 per year) –1 major community science meeting per year Effort –4 People working full-time on ELT science case IMH (lead) + 3 postdoc-level scientists Distributed around Europe Coordinated with other FP7 activity (e.g. AO or instrumentation) Costs per year –FTE: ~ 200kE –Meetings: 25kE + (4 x 10kE) = 65kE –Publication of documents: 20kE (e.g. 2 x 50kE over 5 yrs) –Total per year: ~ 285 kE