1. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 WP3.1 Infrastructure Roadmap: Progress Report

2. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Activities Since Last Board Panel membership completed. Panel membership completed. 5 Working Group and 25 Panel meetings held to-date. 5 Working Group and 25 Panel meetings held to-date. Panels A-C: Questionnaire sent to 112 facilities (>90% returns by early July; facilities’ list posted on ASTRONET website). Panels A-C: Questionnaire sent to 112 facilities (>90% returns by early July; facilities’ list posted on ASTRONET website). Evaluation template formulated and completed by each assigned Panel rapporteur for each facility. Evaluation template formulated and completed by each assigned Panel rapporteur for each facility. Evaluation Criteria developed to give first-pass rankings, then each facility further discussed and judgements refined (e.g. in the light of the Cosmic Vision results). Evaluation Criteria developed to give first-pass rankings, then each facility further discussed and judgements refined (e.g. in the light of the Cosmic Vision results). Science Vision launched 28 Sept 2007; Cosmic Vision results available 17 October 2007 to Panels. Science Vision launched 28 Sept 2007; Cosmic Vision results available 17 October 2007 to Panels.

3. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Activities (cont.) Roadmap Symposium contract signed, event widely publicised and draft programme formulated (see below). Roadmap Symposium contract signed, event widely publicised and draft programme formulated (see below). First draft including all Panel Reports and introductory chapter completed. First draft including all Panel Reports and introductory chapter completed. Meeting held in London with the Agencies (Feb 12 2008) and actions (including further prioritisation, cost/funding envelopes, detailed comments on individual chapters) now being worked on to enable completion of the draft for release. Meeting held in London with the Agencies (Feb 12 2008) and actions (including further prioritisation, cost/funding envelopes, detailed comments on individual chapters) now being worked on to enable completion of the draft for release.

4. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Interrelationships ESO and ESA representatives on the WG ESO and ESA representatives on the WG Similarly for OPTICON and RadioNet Similarly for OPTICON and RadioNet Europlanet representation on Panel C (and on WG in initial phases) Europlanet representation on Panel C (and on WG in initial phases) Information exchange with ASPERA, including round-table meetings (latest 22 Jan 2008) Information exchange with ASPERA, including round-table meetings (latest 22 Jan 2008) ESFRI links, but need to be strengthened ESFRI links, but need to be strengthened

5. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Working Group June 7 (second meeting - initial meeting in March discussed e.g. Panel membership, ToR): June 7 (second meeting - initial meeting in March discussed e.g. Panel membership, ToR): –Received progress reports of Panels. –Agreed criteria for inclusion and list of facilities to survey (Panels A-C). –Discussed form of questionnaire. October 30: October 30: –Received and commented on initial findings of each Panel, particularly with respect to initial rankings. –Referred back to Panels any issues as appropriate. –Agreed the next steps in formulation of the Roadmap.

6. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Working Group (cont.) December 14: December 14: –Reviewed amended version of Panel Reports, focusing on narratives related to high priority projects (A-C) and main recommendations (D, E). –Provided further feedback. –Discussed form of final report. –Agreed preparation for meeting with the Agencies. –Cost profiles, technological readiness further pursued. February 11/12: February 11/12: –Preparatory, main and summary meetings held wrt the Agencies’ Workshop. Additional WG meeting scheduled March 13th to consider actions resulting (Panel telecons in between also). Additional WG meeting scheduled March 13th to consider actions resulting (Panel telecons in between also).

7. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Outline Timetable Appointment of Panel (Co-)Chairs and constitution of Working Group Jan 2007 Appointment of Panel (Co-)Chairs and constitution of Working Group Jan 2007 Appointment of Panel Members and schedule first Panel meetings Mar 2007 Appointment of Panel Members and schedule first Panel meetings Mar 2007 First Draft Panel ReportsOct 2007 First Draft Panel ReportsOct 2007 First Draft Working Group ReportDec 2007 First Draft Working Group ReportDec 2007 Workshop with AgenciesFeb 2008 Workshop with AgenciesFeb 2008 Draft to Board Apr 2008 Draft to Board Apr 2008 Public Draft Roadmap released Apr/May 2008 Public Draft Roadmap released Apr/May 2008 Roadmap Symposium – LiverpoolJun 2008 Roadmap Symposium – LiverpoolJun 2008 Final Roadmap Document producedSep 2008 Final Roadmap Document producedSep 2008

9. Roadmap Symposium: June 16-19 2008, Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008

10. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Main Criteria for Inclusion in Ranking (of Panels A-C) Main focus is on future facilities (includes well-defined major upgrades and significant operational prolongations). Main focus is on future facilities (includes well-defined major upgrades and significant operational prolongations). Only facilities with a significant European content (likely funding requirement) are included. Only facilities with a significant European content (likely funding requirement) are included. Funding requirement > €10M capital cost and/or > €10M operational cost over 5 years (unless special reason). Funding requirement > €10M capital cost and/or > €10M operational cost over 5 years (unless special reason). Only those facilities where a major European funding decision was expected to be required from 2009- were included in the rankings. Only those facilities where a major European funding decision was expected to be required from 2009- were included in the rankings. It is however better to have too much than too little information overall! It is however better to have too much than too little information overall!

11. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Evaluation Framework Broad categories of prioritisation (High, Medium and Low; only High normally discussed in detail in final report; other facilities may be included for “context” and some smaller scale current facilities have been grouped). Broad categories of prioritisation (High, Medium and Low; only High normally discussed in detail in final report; other facilities may be included for “context” and some smaller scale current facilities have been grouped). Sub-divided into cost categories (unfunded European cost): Sub-divided into cost categories (unfunded European cost): Small €10M-€50M; Medium €50M-€400M; Large >€400M Small €10M-€50M; Medium €50M-€400M; Large >€400M (Small: cf. last Decadal Survey for Ground-based; Medium, Large: ~fits with Cosmic Vision wrt “M” missions and “Flagships” for Space-based, including instruments) (Small: cf. last Decadal Survey for Ground-based; Medium, Large: ~fits with Cosmic Vision wrt “M” missions and “Flagships” for Space-based, including instruments) Timescale division (to “full operation”): Short-term (-2015); Medium Term (2016-2020); Long-term (2020+) Timescale division (to “full operation”): Short-term (-2015); Medium Term (2016-2020); Long-term (2020+) Evaluation criteria included Scientific Impact (relation to delivering SV), uniqueness, European involvement, user base, industrial relevance - gave a first-pass ranked list Evaluation criteria included Scientific Impact (relation to delivering SV), uniqueness, European involvement, user base, industrial relevance - gave a first-pass ranked list

12. Exec/Board Paris February 2008 Panels D and E Terms of reference somewhat different from Panels A, B, C Terms of reference somewhat different from Panels A, B, C Specific questions on the questionnaire to facilities, but also undertook information gathering as detailed in Chapters 6 and 7 of the draft Report Specific questions on the questionnaire to facilities, but also undertook information gathering as detailed in Chapters 6 and 7 of the draft Report Panel D gave members responsibility for specific areas Panel D gave members responsibility for specific areas Panel E sub-divided into Task Groups Panel E sub-divided into Task Groups Information exchange with other Panels Information exchange with other Panels