Subject: Re: Google Power
From: Sidney Wolff
Submitted: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:50:01 -0700
Message number: 148
(previous: 147,
next: 149
up: Index)
While this discussion has caused a great deal of amusement at NOAO, I
think the energy would be better spent developing the science case and
requirements so that we can evaluate the design options. I find that
arguments are most passionate when we don't yet have enough information
to make a decision based on facts. In any case, the
exchange will have to cease since I am about to leave for Australia.
And the questions that are relevant are not whether NOAO is a
member of the LSST corporation. The questions are: 1) is an
LSST of any design worth doing? 2) What is the key science that could be
accomplished and accomplished in no other way? 3) Even, in our wildest
dreams, suppose we had both PanSTARRs and an 8-m LSST; how could they combine
to provide capabilities and scientific opportunities that neither could
alone?
In order to decide what path to pursue, NOAO is trying to get as much
information as it can about the options for realizing the decadal survey
recommendation. As I said, we are wearing many hats pursuing many paths to
evaluate options. If PanSTARRs is the right answer, we will find that out
better by developing it and the alternatives to a mature level so we can
do the trades--not by supressing work on one or another of the possible
designs. Since PanSTARRs is currently funded for construction, and the 8-m
LSST work is being pursued entirely within existing operating budgets of
the partners, PanSTARRs should have a big head start. And one thing you can
be sure about is that any decision NOAO makes ultimately about
what it should build will be made in a fishbowl with more community input
than you can possibly imagine--again, unlike PanSTARRs.
And now for the multiple paths to evaluating options:
The SWG was chartered to determine the science priorities, the science
requirements, and the position of the LSST in the overall context of all
the facilities that will be used for surveys in the next decade, including
PanSTARRs. The report is to guide NSF decision making and is
completely independent of efforts to realize any specific design.
In the case of PanSTARRS, which is fully funded and does not need
multiple partners, there is no need to form a corporation. Accordingly,
we have been working on an MOU with PanSTARRs to help where
appropriate, share technology where appropriate, and follow the
development so we know how it works out.
In the case of the monolithic version of the LSST, the only way
to participate in the design phase and directly influence the
priorities was to join a corporation, which we have done with
a clause that allows any of the partners to withdraw after the design
phase is complete. We are a full and founding member of the corporation along
with three other institutions, and currently have one-quarter of the votes.
Because we have established several other corporations (i.e. WIYN and
SOAR), and we have someone on staff who is familiar with procedures and
with the appropriate state office, he has been named the legal contact should
the state of Arizona need to reach someone. Any issue will be taken to the
Board since the contact person is not an officer of the corporation.
I see no better way than the path we are on to obtain ALL the information
we need to make an informed decision.
And now to Australia.
Sidney
LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST Mailing List Server LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST
LSST
LSST This is message 148 in the lsst-general archive, URL
LSST http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/msg.148.html
LSST http://www.astro.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/LSSTmailinglists.pl/show_subscription?list=lsst-general
LSST The index is at http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/INDEX.html
LSST To join/leave the list, send mail to lsst-request@astro.princeton.edu
LSST To post a message, mail it to lsst-general@astro.princeton.edu
LSST
LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST