Which ELT project for Australia

1
Which ELT project for Australia?

• Matthew Colless
• ELT/GMT Information Meeting
• 18 May 2006

2
Australias ELT Roadmap

• In 2004, the Australian ELT Working Group
  produced an ELT Roadmap with three main strands
• Smart buyers
• Which ELT? Science, technology, share, access,
  etc.
• Technology leaders
• Developing Australian technology for ELTs
• Antarctic advantage
• The best telescope on earth should be at the
  best site on earth
• The Roadmap is available on the web at
• http//www.aao.gov.au/instrum/ELT/

3
(No Transcript)
4
ELT projects - the choices
?

• Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT)
• GMT (21.9-25.4m) US/AU private consortium
  Carnegie, SAO, Harvard, Arizona, MIT, U.Texas,
  Texas AM, Michigan ANU
• Cost US550M operations US30M/yr completion
  2015-2016
• Thirty Metre Telescope (TMT)
• TMT (30m) CELT (US priv.) GSMT (US pub.)
  VLOT (Can) Caltech, U.California, NOAO,
  AURA, ACURA
• Cost capped at US700M (build to cost, may force
  lt30m?)
• Completion 2014, first light 2015 (an
  aggressive schedule!)
• European Large Telescope
• OWL (100m) cost 1200M completion 2017-2020
• Now Euro-LT (40-60m, t.b.d.) cost? completion?
• ESO, Opticon (most European countries)

?
5
The Questions

• Which ELT
• best meets Australian science goals?
• offers the best balance of capability and risk?
• provides the largest share for investment?
• provides the greatest technological/industrial
  benefits?
• provides the best overall value for investment?
• is politically and financially most likely to
  succeed?
• Maximise the Drake equation for ELTs (?!?)
• science return x technical return x
  industrial return
• cost x financial risk x technical risk x
  political risk

6
ELT science scope

• Dark matter and dark energy
• First light and reionization
• Galaxy assembly at high-redshift
• Growth of black holes
• Chemical evolution of stars galaxies
• Origin of stellar masses
• Uniqueness of our solar system
• Formation of habitable worlds

• SERENDIPITY!

7
Exoplanet science vs ELT size
8
Stellar population science vs ELT size
9
High-redshift universe science vs ELT size
10
Summary of science vs ELT size

• Comparison of GMT (A22, D24.5) to TMT (A30,
  D30)
• D (30/24.5) 1.2 (TMT/GMT Keck/Gemini)
• D2 A2 (30/22)2 ? GMT 1.8x slower than TMT
  to given limit
• D2? ? GMT 1.5x faster than TMT for surveys
  (wide FoV)
• D4 D2A2 ? TMT wins by factor of 2.8

G M T
11
Essential capabilities for ELT science
12
Mapping science goals to telescope design
Stellar Populations in Galaxies
Characterizing Exoplanets
0
The Birth of Planetary Systems
The Birth of Galaxies
The Birth of Large Scale Structure
13
ELT technical capabilities ? science gains
14
GMT risks, controls and mitigation - 1

• Site and infrastructure
• Well-studied, highly suitable (if not ideal)
  existing site
• Most infrastructure in place and operational for
  years
• Telescope structure and enclosure
• Structural stiffness control are issues but
  appear doable
• Partners have built several large telescopes
  Magellan, HET, LBT
• Off-axis 8m primary mirror(s) (also define
  critical path)
• Prototyping - first mirror under construction now
• Manufacturer part of consortium, good track
  record, well-motivated
• Realisation of spatial resolution
• Stiff structure, adaptive secondary, less
  ambitious adaptive optics
• Telescope and instrument suite dont absolutely
  demand AO

15
GMT risks, controls and mitigation - 2

• Instruments
• AO instruments challenging (but easier than for
  TMT)
• Must ensure funding for strong, broad instrument
  suite
• Costs and funding are major risk factors
• Cost of construction, instrumentation, operations
• Can the consortium find the construction costs?
  If so, greatly reduces political risk
  (competition then a spur not a hurdle)
• To what extent will operations rely on national
  funding? If so, significantly increases political
  risk (direct competition)
• If US government funding is required for both GMT
  and TMT then risk of either losing competition
  with TMT or of merger? In latter case, which
  project proceeds? What happens to partner shares?
• Finally, Australian risk of unconsummated initial
  investment

16
GMT cost estimates from CoDR

• CoDR estimated costs for GMT (and 15 AU share)
  are
• 2006-09 Design Development Phase US55M (AU
  15 11M)
• 2010-16 Construction/Commissioning US550M (AU
  15110M)
• 2016 on Operation ( instruments) US30M/year
  (AU 15 6M)
• For comparison
• TMT is estimated to be US1000M to construct
• OWL construction was capped at 1200M
• For a fixed investment, what is the appropriate
  trade-off between capability (size) and partner
  share?

17
Ten reasons Australia should join GMT now

• World-leading science
• Balance between science capabilities and
  technical risks
• Larger share for given investment can be second
  to none
• Early entry leads to more influence and greater
  benefits
• Technology development leading to knowledge
  transfer
• Education training - links to leading US
  institutions
• Flexible funding model - some choice in how,
  when, what
• Southern location offers synergy with AU
  facilities SKA
• Interest in second-generation Antarctic ELT
• Genuine partnership based on mutual interests
  regard

18
Why GMT rather than another ELT?

• Balance between science capabilities and
  technical risks
• Larger share for given investment can be second
  to none
• Genuine partnership based on mutual interests
  regard
• Flexible funding model - some choice in how,
  when, what
• Southern location offers synergy with AU
  facilities SKA
• Interest in second-generation Antarctic ELT
• World-leading science
• Early entry leads to more influence and greater
  benefits
• Technology development leading to knowledge
  transfer
• Education training - links to leading US
  institutions

19
GMT - a focus for Australian ELT effort

• Australias goal is ?10 of an ELT (15 of GMT?)
• Australia has been open to participating in any
  ELT project
• ELTWG has been keeping in contact with all three
  projects
• However, to provide a real focus for Australian
  ELT effort, the ELTWG has formed an initial
  collaboration with GMT
• GMT have accorded Australia observer status
  with special access to GMT Board, project
  committees and CoDR
• ANU has joined the GMT partnership, putting up
  the entry fee and committing to best-efforts to
  fund at least 5 of DDP
• Commitment of partners is formally only to DDP at
  this stage

20
GMT and Australia - a brief history

• Mid-2004 ELTWG approached by key people in GMT
  consortium regarding possible Australian
  involvement and eventual partnership.
• Sep 2004 Matt Johns (GMT Project Manager) and
  Steve Shectman (GMT Project Scientist) visit
  Australia for detailed discussions.
• Nov 2004 GMT Board endorse Australian
  involvement and direct Chair, Wendy Freedman, to
  begin more formal negotiations.
• Dec 2004 DEST request ELTWG submit proposal for
  involvement in GMT concept design phase no funds
  forthcoming.
• Jun-Dec 2005 AAO/ANU/UNSW staff contribute to
  concept design study for GMT visible multi-object
  spectrograph
• Nov 2005 ELT given high priority in Decadal
  Plan.
• Feb 2006 NCRIS names GMT as potential
  Landmark facility.
• Apr 2006 ANU formally joins the GMT project as
  a partner.
• Mid-2006 Australian community process to decide
  NCRIS priorities (incl. GMT?)
• gtSep 2006 NCRIS funding awarded (Australia
  joins GMT DDP?)

21
ELT projects are now moving into crucial design
phase, setting science agenda, technical design
involvement opportunities. Now is the time for
Australia to get involved if it is to maximize
its influence and return!
AAT 1965 -1975?
Gemini 1985 -1999?
The Australian astronomical community has to
decide which ELT project to join and move forward
to seek the initial funding from NCRIS and
(ultimately), for the construction and operation
phases, Landmark funding
ELT 2000 -2016?
22
Conclusions and NCRIS funding options

• GMT is the best ELT project for Australia to
  join
• Balance between science capabilities and
  technical risks
• Larger share for given investment can be second
  to none
• Genuine partnership based on mutual interests
  regard
• We should join now, leveraging ANU investment
• NCRIS funds needed to expand ANU partner share
  into a national share - but Landmark funding
  ultimately required
• DDP cost is 3.7M per 5 share over 3 years
  (2007-09)
• Could add full 5 share of DDP to ANU 5 (3.7M)
• Could split full 5 share of DDP with ANU (1.9M)
• Could put down first year of extra 5 (1.2M) or
  10 (2.5M)