BRIEF Minutes for SAC telecon #5 10/15/97

Participants: Baldwin, Diaz, Dottori, Elston, Simkin (chair & minutes) (Beers and Loh part time)
Conversation lasted 1 hr.
The telecon was suppose to be devoted to a discussion of Science drivers for the instruments. These were defined as: FOV, resolution, wavelength coverage, band width, and S/N.

Concerns about Priorities:

Baldwin reiterated that we needed to ensure that the instrument volumes discussed by Blanco at the October 1 telecon are large enough to accomidate an optical spectrograph
Later in the discussion a concern was raised that the introduction of Adaptive Optics might make our first light instruments obsolete because we would need detectors with higher resolution to take advantage of 0.05" images.

Sub group Leaders:

It was decided that each working group would be "chaired" by a SAC member. I believe we decided upon the following: (Please indicate if this is incorrect and I will change it).
Instrument interface requirements: Baldwin
Imagers: IR + Optical: McMahan (because not present)
Optical spectrographs: Diaz
IR spectrographs: Elston
Instrument image degradation limits: Diaz?
Wavefront sensors: Dottori?
Adaptive Optics: Simkin

Science Drivers for IR spectrographs:

Elston noted that FOV depended on whether or not a multiobject spectrograph was planned. Spectral resolution was best around R=2000. Stellar work might require R=10,000. Wavelength coverage should be at least 1 to 2.5 microns but could be 1 to 5 microns and bandwidth would depend on R.
A discussion of the trade-offs between detector sensitivity and wavelength sensitivity ensued briefly

Science Drivers for IR + Optical Imagers:

These were not articulated. It was noted that simultanious IR and Optical imaging was not pratical because IR images were short exposueres and "dithered" while optical images were much longer exposures.

Science Drivers for Optical spectrographs:

A long discussion based on a meeting which took place in Brazil the day before came to these conclusions: A desire to cover the entire wavelenght range UV to Near IR in one exposure lead to the idea of wavelength coverage from 360nm to 800nm with R=10,000 and FOV of 5 to 7'. It was noted by Baldwin and Beers (and seconded by Simkin) that the specvtral region below 360nm is very valuable for both AGN and stellar work. The possibility of a spectrograph which allowed red or blue coverage as a simple switching option was discussed.

Progress on defining instrument interface requirements:

Baldwin stated that this group had met and seemed to be converging onto a "why reinvent the wheel" philosophy (ie adopt Gemini standards where ever reasonable).

Future Oct. SAC meetings? These have not been planned yet.

(Dottori, Elston, McMahan*, Baldwin, Loh) (Diaz*, McMahan, Baldwin/Ingerson, Cecil) Discuss: Strategy for AO beyond tip/tilt. (Diaz, Simkin*/Loh) Define decision timescale for AO. Remember science drivers are: FOV, resolution, wavelength coverage, band width, S/N, and what else? As best as I can make out the following are our topics for tomorrow: 1. Summarize progress on defining instrument interface requirements: (Baldwin*, Simkin/Loh) (7min) Discuss Science Drivers for: 2. Imagers: IR + Optical (Diaz, Elston, McMahan, Baldwin, Loh) ?* (7min) 3. Optical spectrographs: (Dottori, McMahan, Baldwin/Ingerson, Cecil) ?* (7min) 4. IR spectrographs: (Elston*, Simkin) (7min) Discuss: