Objectives 1. How should Gemini respond in terms of scientific effectiveness to the the current competition from Subaru, ESO and perhaps even Keck? 2. What does the Gemini Science Staff want to see discussed and proposed at Aspen 2003 What is our vision of the Future? What is our vision of the Future?

Gemini Board Presentation, November 2001

The Gemini telescopes are designed to compete by exploiting D/  For background or sky noise limited observations: S  Telescope Diameter (D)   N Delivered Image Diameter (     Speed =   Time to given S/N  D 2  .   Where:   is the product of the system throughput and detector QE  is the instantaneous background flux .

Gemini South IR Performance and some results 4.7  m R=100,000 Rogers et al (in prep.)

Flamingos / Gemini-S Preliminary Results J,H,K Luminosity Functions show the expected peak near 0.3 M(solar) a slow decline or plateau in the brown dwarf regime (J~ mag) for unreddened objects A more rapid decline below the deuterium-burning limit and indications of a cut-off at a few M(Jupiter) Observations are complete to well below K=19mag. Flamingos on Gemini-S Deep J,H,K images in 1 field south of the Orion Core Total of 4hr integration arcsec images Lucas et al

IR Optimization works: Gemini-South IR (4 micron) Commissioning Images of Galactic Center Gemini South + ABU + fast tip/tiltGemini South + ABU + fast tip/tilt Brackett Brackett  FWHM ~ 0.35”FWHM ~ 0.35” 1 minute integration1 minute integration Simons & Becklin 1992Simons & Becklin 1992 IRTF (3.6m) - L’IRTF (3.6m) - L’ 16,000 images shift/add16,000 images shift/add An entire night….An entire night….

Perlman, Sparks, et al. Gemini North: M87 jet at 10 mm– Deepest image ever taken in the mid IR OSCIR, 10.8  m HST/F300W, 0.3  m  Sensitivity (1 , 1 h): mJy/pix (pix scale = 0.089”) 0.1 mJy on point source 14  Jy/pixel after further IR Optimization

Relative through-put of “Gemini Silver” vs. Aluminum Telescopes ( nm) Ratio of System Transmission Three Reflecting Surfaces

Gemini in the Optical – GMOS North comes on-line PMN Quasar at z=4.11 Gemini SV PI: Isobel Hook 60min – 140min per filter Seeing (FWHM) 0.5 – 0.7 arcsec 5 sigma detection limits : g'=27.5 mag g'=27.5 mag r'=27.2 mag r'=27.2 mag i'=26.3 mag i'=26.3 mag GMOS on Gemini 5.5’ x 5.5’

GMOS Queue Observing 2002A Summary of the completion rates as fraction of programs ========================================================== Band Completion rate >90% >50% <50% /14= /14=0.79 3/14= /8 =0.25 3/8 =0.38 5/8 = /8 =0.25 4/8 =0.50 4/8 = /11=0.09 2/11 =0.18 9/11=0.82 Many observations in band 3 and 4 were taken in poor observing conditions, and the programs in these bands with significant data were programs that could tolerate CC=70% or worse, and seeing of 1arcsec or worse. Gemini North reliability >90% ( 90% (<10% down time) GMOS Observing efficiency (shutter open/elapsed) ~ 70%

GMOS: Evolution of ages and metalicity in Clusters from z= 1 to present epoch ( Jørgensen 2002) The S/N needed for this type of work is per Angstrom in the restframe of the cluster GMOS can deliver this. wavelength 5.5 hrs sky subtracted

I=23.8 z=1.07 Example object: N&S subtracted [OII] 3727 at 7700Å The GDDS team

GDDS: ultra-super-preliminary results These are just the ‘easy’ ones so far! Full 100,000 secs will pound on z=1.5 old red galaxies N&S works! Ultimate ‘sky null’ technique. Could reach I=27 in 10 6 secs on 30m The GDDS team

3C324 3-D data cube at z = 1.2 [OII]3727 structure has two velocity components at +/-400km/s Wavelength/velocity Bunker et al (2002) X (7 arcsec) Y ( 5 arcsec )

CIRPASS early results – first use of a near-IR IFU on an 8m-class telescope. The example from the z=1.2 radio galaxy 3C324. Dispersion runs horizontally, spatial direction is vertical; each of the 500 IFU lenslets produces a spectrum 2 pixels high. The preliminary processing (basic sky subtraction and cosmic ray rejection) of this single 20 minute exposure shows a very clear detection of the redshifted [OIII] 500.7nm emission line (centre of the frame). GMOS – IFU now available on Gemini North CIRPASS – IR IFU will be available on Gemini South in Service Mode in 2003A in Service Mode in 2003A

Exploring the Gemini context NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI Keck I&II UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT OWL CELT and maybe GSMT… LSST The decade of adaptive optics The era of the “giants” SOFIA SIRTF VISTA SUBARU Gemini N Gemini S ?

NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI Keck I&II UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT OWL CELT and maybe GSMT… LSST The decade of adaptive optics The era of the “giants” SOFIA SIRTF Gemini N ALTAIR + LGS Michelle NIFS GMOS GAOS -> MCAO GNIRS NICI Flam. 2 Gemini S T-RECS VISTA SUBARU ? Exploring the Gemini context - and responding

Our communities have struggled to deliver instruments 1.0 Slip Factor = original schedule + slip original schedule Data complied by Adrian Russell Schedule Performance

Gemini-North Time Distribution ALTAIR MICHELLE Hokupa’a-S NIFS ALTAIR LGS New Instrument Mode Tests ALTAIR (cont.) Queue Observing Gemini’s queue support threshold Above 50% Classical time allocated

Gemini-South Time Distribution T-ReCS GMOS-S bHROSGNIRS NICI GSAOI SCAO FLAMINGOS-2 GNIRS (cont) New Modes MCAO T-ReCS (cont) Queue Observing Gemini’s queue support threshold Above 50% Classical time allocated

Challenges Instruments, instruments, instruments…… Gemini South will be without facility instruments until mid 2003 from the user perspective And instrument delivery schedules constrain science availability of Gemini Telescopes How do we maximize our science effectiveness? Should we commission everything we get?

Responding to the Future MCAO MCAO   Building a system Aspen 2003 Instrumentation Workshop Aspen 2003 Instrumentation Workshop  Planning Gemini instruments for The competition in the next decade (post 2012) The competition in the next decade (post 2012)  Exploring our “market place”

Exploring the Gemini context Space verses the Ground Takamiya (2001)

Defining the role of Gemini in the era of a 6.5m NGST Assuming a detected S/N of 10 for NGST on a point source, with 4x1000s integration GEMINI advantage NGST advantage R = 30,000 R = 5,000 R = 1,000 R = 5 Time gain

Redefining “wide field” in the 8 – 10m era NICMOS HDF 49”x49” 235 Objects down to AB mag 28.8 at 1.6  m GMOS on Gemini 5.5’ x 5.5’ PMN Quasar at z= sigma detection limits : g'=27.5 mag r'=27.2 mag i'=26.3 mag >1000 objects

The Future and Exploiting our strengths But let’s look a little further ahead…… Image quality Diffraction limited, near IR AO, thermal IR Diffraction limited, near IR AO, thermal IR Optical – exploiting queue scheduling -- AO enhanced seeing Optical – exploiting queue scheduling -- AO enhanced seeingEfficiency Minimizing emissivity -- Maximizing through-put Minimizing emissivity -- Maximizing through-put Highly multiplexed spectroscopy Highly multiplexed spectroscopy The “automated queue” The “automated queue”Innovation How do we sustain innovation is such a competitive environment? How do we sustain innovation is such a competitive environment?

Entering the Era of Giants - the Challengers in the post 2012 World ALMA

Entering the Era of Giants - the Challengers in the post 2012 World CELT GSMT The 30m challengers The ~6-8m challenger OWL The 100m challenger NGST

Gemini HST AO-8m 0.6 arcsec OWL Full AO: 1.0 mas at V i.e. 40  HSTFull AO: 1.0 mas at V i.e. 40  HST Limiting mag in 10 h : V=38 The spatial resolution sensitivity challenge Sensitivity and Field-of-view Courtesy Gilmozzi (2002)

Looking Forward to 2012 Space verses the Ground Takamiya (2001) NGST territory Ground based territory

Comparative performance of a 30m GSMT with a 6.5m NGST Assuming a detected S/N of 10 for NGST on a point source, with 4x1000s integration GSMT advantage NGST advantage R = 10,000 R = 1,000 R = 5

GSMT: Galaxy Evolution Courtesy of M. Bolte

Tomography of Individual Galaxies out to z ~3 Determine the gas and stellar dynamics within Determine the gas and stellar dynamics within individual galaxies individual galaxies Quantify variations in star formation rate Quantify variations in star formation rate – Tool: IFU spectra [R ~ 5,000 – 10,000] [R ~ 5,000 – 10,000] GSMT 3 hour, 3s limit at R=5, ”x0.1” IFU pixel (sub-kpc scale structures) J H K

Resolved Stellar Populations - results from MCAO simulation NGST GSMT/CELT (Simulations 120 sec x 15 coadds)

Search for exo-biospheres: Solar light years (Gilmozzi et al 2002) Jupiter Earth OWL 100m J Band 80% Strehl 10 4 sec 0.4’’ seeing O.1’’

? NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI Keck I&II UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT OWL CELT and maybe GSMT… LSST The era of the “giants” SOFIA SIRTF ALTAIR + LGS Michelle NIFS GMOS GAOS -> MCAO GNIRS NICI Flam. 2 T-RECS VISTA SUBARU Gemini N Gemini S Multi-IFU & MCAO++? Extreme AO? Mid-IR opportunity? Seeing enhanced R=1,000,000 spectroscopy? Aspen2003 Gemini’s Environment,“Aspen 2003” & our window of opportunity The decade of adaptive optics

? NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI Keck I&II UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT OWL CELT and maybe GSMT… LSST SOFIA SIRTF ALTAIR + LGS Michelle NIFS GMOS GAOS -> MCAO GNIRS NICI Flam. 2 T-RECS VISTA SUBARU Gemini N Gemini S Multi-IFU & MCAO++? Extreme AO? Mid-IR opportunity? Aspen2003 Gemini’s Environment,“Aspen 2003” & our window of opportunity In this evolving environment, timing as well as performance is key The decade of adaptive optics The era of the “giants” Seeing enhanced R=1,000,000 spectroscopy?

Conclusions and thoughts Staying competitive in the 2010 decade is going to be challenging: Staying competitive in the 2010 decade is going to be challenging: We will have to [very thoughtfully] play to our strengths We will have to [very thoughtfully] play to our strengths Gemini: IR performance, image quality Mauna Kea and Cerro Pachon Gemini: IR performance, image quality Mauna Kea and Cerro Pachon SUBARU: Extremely versatile high-performance telescope, unprecedented wide field performance, Mauna Kea SUBARU: Extremely versatile high-performance telescope, unprecedented wide field performance, Mauna Kea ESO…….. ????? ESO…….. ????? By 2012, in the era of, ALMA, NGST and “the emerging Giants” we must be globally acknowledged, world-class science machines By 2012, in the era of, ALMA, NGST and “the emerging Giants” we must be globally acknowledged, world-class science machines  But probably quite specialized ‘queue based’ machines  And ‘classical’ time will be allocated to Project Teams (and their instruments), not individuals…..  optimum use of “remote observing” to create “virtual teams”

Challenges Instruments, instruments, instruments…… Gemini South will be without facility instruments until mid 2003 from the user perspective And instrument delivery schedules constrain science availability of Gemini Telescopes Should we commission everything we get?

Conclusions and thoughts We must understand our respective “market places” – starting today We must understand our respective “market places” – starting today Can we continue to duplicate facility instruments at $7M - $15M each? Can we continue to duplicate facility instruments at $7M - $15M each? Should we begin to explore time exchange models? Should we begin to explore time exchange models?