Meeting #8 - Gemini Observatory

8 th GEMINI OPERATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING 

February 7-8, 2005 

Minutes 

Present: Taft Armandroff, Guillermo Bosch, Stephanie Cote (observer), Warrick Couch (Chair), Dennis 

Crabtree, Max Faundez-Abans, Paul Francis, Joe Jensen, Rachel Johnson, Sebastian Lopez, Phil Puxley, 

Jean-Rene Roy, Doug Simons, Richard Wainscoat. 

Action items 

Action 8.1: Roy to arrange for the minutes of the February 2004 and August 2004 Operations Working 

Group meetings (#6 & #7) to be made accessible to the community (without password protection) on the 

Gemini Web site. 

Action 8.2: Puxley to circulate OT worklist to NGOs. 

Action 8.3: Puxley to undertake simulations in order to understand the effects of reducing the queueloading 

quantum, with the goal of reducing the size of Science Ranking Band 1 (in terms of total hours) 

but at the same time ensuring all partners retain at least one queue program in this band. 

Action 8.4: Roy to make arrangements for those contents of the internal Gemini webpages that are of 

interest to the NGOs and are not of a confidential or sensitive nature, to be made available in a public 

area on the Gemini website. 

Action 8.5: Puxley to change the advertised deadline for Phase II preparation for classical runs to 3 

weeks prior to the run (it is currently 2 weeks), making it clear that this is measured from the observer’s 

first night. 

Action 8.6: NGOs to take responsibility for checking proposals to ensure that the specification of their 

instrument resource requirements are complete, and to rectify if need be. 

Action 8.7: NGOs to take responsibility for checking Phase I proposals for incorrect email addresses. 

Action 8.8: Armandroff to lead the organisation of the next ‘NGO’ meeting in Tucson on 29-30 

November 2005, with the assistance of Aspin (Gemini), Francis, and a staff member from each of the 

Canadian and UK NGOs. 

Action 8.9: UK NGO to undertake work required to allow GMOS masks to be made from non-GMOS 

images. 

Action 8.10: Armandroff to circulate a sample PDF file that is written out from a PIT proposal using 

recent NOAO software. Also circulate the style sheet. 

Day 1: 7 February 2005 

1. Review of Minutes and Action items 

Couch opened the meeting and welcomed all participants. 

The action items from the August 2004 meeting were reviewed. All of them had been accomplished 

except 7.5, with Puxley still to circulate the OT worklist to the NGOs for comments. 

C:\Documents and Settings\armand\My Documents\NGSC\Ops Working Group\OWG Meeting Feb05\Minutes_OWG_Feb05.doc 

1

Roy then reviewed the relevant Gemini Board resolutions, drawing the OpsWG’s attention to: on the 

recommendation of the GSC, the Board had adopted the OpsWG’s recommendation for the charging of 

queue and classical time; the minimum of 70% with a goal of 80% science fractions for 2005B; the need 

for the Observatory to increase the completion rates, reduce the ‘salami-slicing’ for queue programs, and 

implement electronic delivery of data to PIs as soon as possible. 

2. Instrumentation 

Doug Simons reviewed the status of Gemini instrumentation. 

ALTAIR: Work is underway on ALTAIR to increase the size of the isoplanatic patch. The work entails 

optics changes in ALTAIR and changes to its wavefront sensor. The Gemini North laser underwent preship 

acceptance testing at CTI. CTI is addressing the punch list from the tests. The new tip/tilt/focus 

sensor for ALTAIR LGS is planned to be installed in April. Commissioning of ALTAIR LGSC is 

planned for the middle of 2005. 

MICHELLE/T-ReCS: Joe Jensen is working with Gemini Staff to procure new filters for MICHELLE 

and T-ReCS. 

GMOS: The new “Lesserized” CCDs for GMOS have been held up by a contaminated processing oven 

at Mike Lesser’s Lab in Arizona. The oven has now been fixed, and one wafer has been processed and 

sent to MIT Lincoln Labs. Simons will direct his contractors to pursue Lesserized CCDs (GMOS South) 

and BIV CCDs (GMOS North) on a parallel track. Also, procurement for the Gemini South mask cutter 

is underway. 

There has been very little activity on the GMOS ADCs, either at Gemini or HIA. The GMOS CCD 

retrofit has been given higher priority. New narrow-band filters for GMOS have been ordered. 

FLAMINGOS-2: The Florida Team has been making good progress in integrating FLAMINGOS-2. 

The acceptance testing is planned for the end of 2005 or early 2006. Simons plans to decide on a 

destination for FLAMINGOS-2 at the next GSC meeting. 

NIFS: After the failure of the NIFS HAWAII-2 detector, Rockwell could not promise timely delivery of 

another HAWAII-2. Hence, it was decided to switch to a H2RG detector. Extra work is needed based on 

this change of detector. Thus, NIFS acceptance testing is now expected in mid 2005. Also, the earliest 

that NIFS would be available to community is semester 2006A. 

GSAOI: The first cold cycle of GSAOI occurred. Mechanisms were found to have a preload problem. 

An H2RG MUX self-destructed due to the known thermal problem. Gemini is being offered H2RG 

detectors regularly by Rockwell and is trading off excellent performance vs. delivery schedule. 

bHROS: Gemini recently sent a report to PPARC detailing bHROS deficiencies and proposing to 

complete bHROS as soon as possible using mostly Gemini resources. This should lead to demonstration 

science in 2005B, then community access in 2006A. 

GNIRS: New camera lenses for GNIRS’s short cameras are nearing completion at Janos. NOAO and 

Gemini Staff will install these in mid 2005. New GNIRS filters are on order from Barr. These will be 

installed as part of the lens work. 

NICI: MKIR is preparing for its next cold test. This test will include the NICI science-grade detectors. 

MKIR just received two dichroics from Barr. The pacing item in NICI development is the AO system. 

MKIR is still awaiting a deformable mirror (DM) delivery from the University of Hawaii. Gemini is 

procuring a “back-up” commercial deformable mirror. 

Hokupa’a-85: The Hokupa’a-85 run at Gemini South in August commenced with a “NICI-style” DM. 

This DM delaminated during use at Gemini South. The rest of the August run used an old-style Hawaii 

DM that did not have adequate stroke, but that was useful for testing interface issues. U. Hawaii then 

commenced a rapid DM development and production effort to address the delamination problem. New 

DMs were produced by late 2004 and stress tested to prove that delamination was no longer an issue. 

The Hokupa’a-85 run at Gemini South in January 2005 tested these new DMs. Unfortunately, these DMs 


2

exhibited major problems during this January 2005 run. Thus, Hokupa’a-85 was not fully commissioned 

and did not appear to meet its performance specifications. 

3. Call for Proposals for 2005B – Initial Discussion 

Puxley reviewed Gemini’s suggested parameters for the 2005B Call for Proposals. The offered 

instruments and modes have changed very little from 2005A. The primary change is offering 

MICHELLE spectroscopy in classical mode. Puxley then stated Gemini plans to offer 70% science time 

on Gemini North and described the uses of the remaining time for commissioning and engineering. One 

of the commissioning items is MICHELLE polarimetry. This is being inserted from the GSC’s 2 nd 

priority bin because NIFS is not available for commissioning. Wainscoat and Armandroff raised the 

issue that MICHELLE is not requested or scheduled much in 2005A. Thus, while neither proposed 

stopping this commissioning, it is somewhat questionable unless MICHELLE demand increases. For 

Gemini South, the principal questionable item is whether Hokupa’a-85 will meet the performance criteria 

to be offered in 2005B. A report from the Hokupa’a-85 Team is pending. 

Puxley showed the aggregate time distribution. The U.K. and Canada are behind in the aggregate 

distribution, despite corrections in total time applied at the previous Operations Working Group. Gemini 

Staff and the U.S. are ahead. Puxley enlightened the committee about his views that the merging 

sequence may need to be changed to truly address the imbalance. As the imbalance situation was 

corrected at the most recent Operations Working Group meeting, only the total time constraint was 

changed. Armandroff identified another issue that may be leading to the imbalance and our inability to 

correct in our most recent attempt. The histograms over the observing conditions show that the United 

States and Gemini Staff submit packages that are better balanced over observing conditions than most 

partners, while the U.K. and Canada show a bias toward good conditions in their programs. Thus, the 

U.S. and Gemini Staff programs may show increased probability of execution, relative to Canada and 

U.K., during periods of non-optimal conditions. Discussion ensued on how best to address these factors 

in an attempt to correct these imbalances. 

4. 2005B Process and Schedule 

Puxley described that the 2005A proposal process was quite successful. There were a record number of 

proposals. The modified PIT for joint proposals worked quite smoothly. The NOAO-supplied PIT 

backend was installed at all NGOs as part of the greater automation and uniformity this semester. There 

were many fewer proposal processing issues than in semester 2004B. Everyone seemed pleased by the 

2005A improvements. 

For 2005B, the PIT will be enhanced to require explicit description of past Gemini allocations and what 

has transpired with the data. NOAO has developed software to produce formatted PDF files from PIT 

that include figures. NOAO gave the software to Gemini. Puxley offered to share this with any NGO 

and to allow different style sheets for each NGO. 

We discussed the fact that occasionally NGOs change the conditions in Joint programs. These really 

need to be adjusted to agreed joint conditions at some point. We agreed that whenever there are 

discrepant conditions among components of a joint proposal, it needs to be resolved at ITAC by the 

ITAC representatives of the partners in question. 

We discussed the different notification methodologies about the results of the TAC process by various 

NGOs. 

5. NGO-Gemini Interactions and Metrics 

5.1 Metrics 

Roy described the status of the NGO metrics. A subcommittee of the Ops Working Group (Roy, 

Johnson, Crabtree, Armandroff) has worked on the NGO metrics. The current state of the metrics is 

contained in the meeting materials. The subcommittee will meet again to further refine the metrics. The 

goal is for the Metrics Subcommittee to complete its work in time to provide an agreed set of metrics by 

the August Operations Working Group. The August meeting would then modify or approve the NGO 


3

Metrics. A final set of agreed metrics will then be presented to the GSC and Gemini Board at their 

October/November meetings. 

5.2 NGO-Gemini Communications 

These were discussed, with each NGO representative providing his or her perspectives. The key points 

and issues to emerge from these discussions are as follows: 

• The Gemini video training sessions in December were found to be very helpful to and much 

appreciated by the NGO participants. 

• The NGO-initiated telecons of the OpsWG members are useful and should be continued. 

• The visits to the Gemini sites for queue observing and training are beneficial, both from a 

knowledge perspective and from fostering connections between the Gemini and NGO staffs. 

• There is continued desire by the NGOs for access to the information on the Gemini internal Web 

pages. 

• The NGOs wish to foster more sharing of ideas and questions between NGO staff members and 

their counterparts at Gemini. Not all ideas or initiatives need go through the Gemini and NGO 

leaders. 

6. NGO Phase I and Phase II reports 

During the NGO reports (see Appendix A), the following items of consensus emerged: 

• There is a strong desire that the overheads are made clearer to PIs and represent well the 

overheads that are experienced in reality. The stated GMOS advice to budget for a 25% 

overhead is an overestimate. It is in the Gemini work list to incorporate more realistic overhead 

calculations into the ITCs and OT. All agreed that this would solve the overhead problem once 

accomplished. The perception of some community members that several of the overheads are 

large and non-competitive is a perception problem for Gemini and the NGOs. 

• Several of the NGOs noted the difficulty of the T-ReCS ITC being non-functional and the 

MICHELLE spectroscopic ITC not being implemented. Puxley informed us that the Gemini 

Staff are working on this. There are some coding optimization issues underway currently. 

• In response to desires of the GSC, ITAC, and some of the NTACs, Gemini will update the PIT to 

require listing previous Gemini time allocations and what the status of the data is (reduced, 

published, etc.). 

• Gemini has implemented a revised mechanism for the NGOs to mirror the Gemini Web site. 

This will allow access when the Gemini Web site is down or unreachable. 

• Several of the NGOs expressed appreciation and strong benefit to users from the OT libraries. It 

is helpful to have access to libraries for all instruments within the OT. Puxley informed the 

NGOs that Gemini is enhancing the prominence and capabilities of libraries within the OT. 

• There is strong interest in creating Phase-2 instructions and information for each Gemini 

observing capability that can be accessed/printed with a single mouse click. This is motivated by 

allowing PIs to avoid searching multiple locations for this information. 

7. Science efficiency and productivity 

Puxley presented an analysis of shutter-open efficiency. The numbers are encouraging. There were 

several suggestions to publicize these efficiency values to the Gemini community via the Gemini Web 

pages and/or Newsletter. 


4

Puxley is preparing to do an analysis of the queue observing statistics to test for “salami slicing.” 

Roy updated the OpsWG on Gemini publications. There had been a big increase in the publication 

output in December and January. Roy reminded the NGOs to search out papers that do not have the 

standard Gemini acknowledgment and remind authors to include it. Roy also reviewed a very nice set of 

Gemini science highlights. 

Roy outlined plans for the new Gemini Newsletter. The NGO Reports will no longer be a part of the 

Newsletter. Emphasis will be placed on high-level scientific summaries of Gemini results. One NGO 

person will be included as a member of the editorial board; Johnson agreed to fill this position. The 

NGOs will be responsible for soliciting scientific articles and delivering them to the Newsletter. 

Instrumentation articles are also encouraged. 

Day 2: 8 February 2005 

8. Reports on semester science operations 

The impact of the MICHELLE compensatory time was discussed. The OpsWG expressed concerns about 

the consequences of the present compensatory and guaranteed time policy. The present policy may act as 

a disincentive for use of new instruments. For example, for the 05A semester, demand for Michelle was 

small. There is only one band 1 program (allocated 9 hours) that is not from the UK; there are no band 2 

Michelle programs. The band 1 program therefore potentially could be charged 9 + 12 hours 

compensatory time, or a total of 21 hours for just 9 hours of science. Such a charge is not reasonable. 

Resolution 8.1 – The OpsWG recommends that compensatory time and guaranteed time payments 

from 2005A onwards are limited to a maximum rate of 20% of the time charged. This rate should 

not be a disincentive for instrument use, yet is a reasonable rate considering the work involved in 

producing a new instrument. The OpsWG recommends that payments beyond the 20% rate are 

accumulated and accounted separately. On an individual semester basis, the excess accumulated 

cost would be borne by the partnership, but the payment of compensation would continue in future 

semesters until users have paid all accumulated compensatory time, or the instrument is 

decommissioned. 

The OpsWG also recommends that future compensatory and guaranteed time agreements are 

limited to classical time. Awarding compensatory time in Band 1 queue causes a large change in 

national balance in Band 1, requires Band 1 to be made unreasonably large, and reduces the 

completion rate of Band 1. 

9. Large science campaigns 

Jensen gave a detailed presentation about the need to allocate large blocks of time to the scientific 

programs which are the main drivers for the new Aspen instruments (e.g., “dark energy” and “galaxy 

genesis” programs). He proposed to use the NICI planet-finding program as a ‘path-finder’ in the 

development of a new mechanism for allocating time to campaign programs. 

The NGO representatives felt that they needed to show this presentation to their national advisory 

committees. Armandroff was concerned that there were dangers in building the campaign process around 

NICI, since there were uncertainties over its delivery time performance. Certainly, the survey allocation 

and plan can be tweaked when the performance is better known. However, if NICI’s performance is 

significantly below that expected or is very late, it may no longer be productive to undertake such a 

survey. 

Resolution 8.2 – The OpsWG recommends that Jensen’s proposal be discussed by the GSC at its 

meeting in April. In doing so, it has the following comments/concerns to make/flag: 


5

• It accepts that the Aspen science goals demand large allocations of telescope time. 

• It endorses the top-level principles contained within the proposal: 

o Enable Aspen science goals 

o Attract the best groups and encourage creativity 

o Award telescope time through open competition 

o Maintain balanced and inclusive partner participation 

o Allow free participation by anyone in the Gemini community 

o Maintain time for PI science. 

• It highlights the following potential concerns: 

o The dangers in allocating time outside the normal TAC process 

o The need for monitoring survey progress and team formation during the campaign 

o The difficulties in getting competitors to work together 

o Making sure ‘peripheral’ science is included by enlisting auxiliary team members 

o ‘Locking out’ campaign targets to regular PI programs. 

10. Long-range instrument deployment and decommissioning plan 

The Gemini Science Committee (GSC) was asked at its October 2004 meeting to sketch out a future 

instrument availability plan that limits the number of instruments to a set that is feasibly supported by 

Observatory scientific and engineering staff. This was set by the Observatory at 4 supported instruments 

at each telescope [not including facilities, such as the AO systems] with 2 or fewer instrument changes 

per telescope per semester. The GSC devised such a plan through 2007 and presented it in its report. 

At this OpsWG meeting, Simons presented an alternative instrument deployment plan. Simons’ plan 

resembles the GSC plan in embracing the concept of “core” instruments, yet it has some notable 

differences. 

• GNIRS moves to Gemini-North in 2007, 

• Both GMOS-N and GMOS-S, as well as bHROS, are decommissioned in 2007, 

• TEXES is made available on Gemini-North for two weeks per semester, starting in 2006. 

• It extends in time well beyond 2007, into the Aspen instrument era (2008-2011). 

The OpsWG discussed the Simons plan extensively and appreciated the opportunity to comment. It 

recognizes the need to retire instruments as new ones come on line. It also believes that the scientific 

opportunities, technical advantages, and community aspirations need to be considered carefully before 

the instrumentation roadmap is finalized. It was agreed that OpsWG members would consult their 

national science advisory committees over the GSC and Simon plans before the GSC ‘Aspen retreat’ in 

April. It will be important to have the GSC discuss and comment in detail on the Simons plan at the April 

GSC meeting. 

Resolution 8.3 – The OpsWG is grateful to Doug Simons for his efforts to further develop a longrange 

instrument deployment and decommissioning plan for the Gemini telescopes. It has the 

following comments to make on what is proposed in his plan: 

• The proposed retirement of the two GMOS instruments at the end of 2007 is a major 

concern because of the very strong community demand for these instruments and the wide 

range of science they enable. GMOS makes up the vast majority of some partners’ 

proposals. The OpsWG considers it essential that Gemini retain one of the GMOS 

instruments. 

• The retention of one of the GMOS instruments requires that some other instrument be 

decommissioned at the end of 2007. The OpsWG suggests one of the mid-IR instruments, 

either T-ReCS or Michelle. This would maintain mid-IR as well as optical capability on one 

of the two Gemini telescopes, which the OpsWG views as being vital. 


6

• It strongly endorses the plan to keep an AO-fed, near-IR imaging and spectroscopic 

capability on both telescopes. 

• It recommends that a minimum of two years notice be given for retiring instruments. 

12. Finalization of Call for Proposals for 2005B 

A final discussion of the Call proposed by Puxley took place, from which the following resolutions 

ensued: 

Resolution 8.4 – The OpsWG endorsed the proposal by Gemini staff for the capabilities to be 

offered on Gemini-North and Gemini-South in semester 2005B. 

Resolution 8.5 – The OpsWG is fully supportive of the HIRES-MICHELLE time exchange with 

Keck. However, a significant complication arose in 2005A when it was implemented for the first 

time. Keck prepares their telescope schedule before the Gemini ITAC meets and hence the Gemini 

HIRES time is scheduled without knowledge of the programs’ lunar phase requirements, the RA 

range of its targets, whether the ‘red’ or ‘blue’ arm is required, and what observing dates are 

unacceptable to the PIs. The OpsWG recommends that Gemini work with Keck to explore means 

by which the Gemini HIRES time can be scheduled to better meet the needs of the programs 

recommended by the Gemini ITAC. 

Resolution 8.6 – The OpsWG endorsed Puxley’s proposal for dealing with joint proposals which 

are ‘discrepant’ due to the individual NTACs/NGOs involved making changes to the proposal, for 

example to the specified observing conditions: In future these should be recombined at the pre- 

ITAC stage by taking the poorest of the recommended conditions, with the possibility that they are 

modified again by ITAC. 

Resolution 8.7 – The OpsWG recommends that the NGOs take responsibility for checking 

proposals to ensure that the specification of their instrument resource requirements are complete, 

and to rectify if need be. 

Resolution 8.8 – The OpsWG recommends that it will be the responsibility of the NGOs to enforce 

the Phase-II hard deadlines. Programs not received by the second PI deadline will not be accepted 

by the NGOs. PIs who miss the deadline and want their program reinstated will be advised by the 

NGOs to contact the Associate Directors. 

Resolution 8.9 – The OpsWG endorses Puxley’s proposal to address the time-charging /usage 

imbalance by automatically applying in each semester a 50% correction to the distribution of time 

to each of the partners, and adjusting the merging sequence to the resulting effective partner 

shares. 

Armandroff alerted the OpsWG to the NOAO software that makes PDF files from the PIT (including 

figures), and showed an example. It was agreed that this feature should be incorporated into the PIT and 

be customized for each partner country. Armandroff offered to circulate a sample PIT-proposal-derived 

PDF file and the related style sheet to OpsWG members. 

13. Other items 

13.1 Gemini Science Archive 

Roy gave a progress report on the Gemini Science Archive (GSA). New instruments, such as 

MICHELLE and GNIRS, are being added to the GSA. Refinements in the interface, such as filter 

naming, are taking place. Data distribution via the GSA, with P.I. notification by e-mail, is planned to be 

underway soon. A first version is scheduled for testing in May 2005, with a final version by September 

2005. 

13.2 Another ‘NGO” meeting 


7

The OpsWG discussed convening another meeting for NGO and Gemini Staff for training and 

interactions. Armandroff volunteered to host this meeting at NOAO in Tucson. The Organizing 

Committee will be Armandroff, Cote, Francis, and a UK member to be named later. The dates would be 

November 29 and 30, with ITAC occurring in Tucson on December 1. 

13.3 IQ and seeing monitor on Cerro Pachon 

Puxley reported that the seeing monitor (DIMM) at CP was now automated and producing 

measurements. While not all the measurements could be explained, in particular comparisons with seeing 

measurements made with instruments on the Gemini-South telescope, the DIMM seeing measurements 

were nonetheless being used as the basis for running the queue. It was also reported that further work is 

still require before a seeing monitor is installed at Gemini-North, where it will be installed on the 

emergency staircase for the telescope dome. 

13.4 GMOS mask definition from non-GMOS images 

The UK NGO has agreed to tackle this problem, working with scripts that Michael Ledlow had 

developed. 

13.5 Mirroring the Gemini website 

A new, ‘secure’ method of doing this has been developed by IT staff at Gemini. Instructions on 

how to do this are to be sent to the NGOs shortly 

14. Next OpsWG meeting 

This will be hosted by the UK NGO in Oxford, and held on 8-9 August 2005. 

Appendix A – Reports from the National Gemini Offices 


8

Argentinean Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Guillermo Bosch 

o/subs rate 

Applied: 4 proposals (3 GMOS + 1 NIRI) to Gemini North (33.27 hours) 1.4 

4 proposals (3 GMOS + 1 T-ReCS) to Gemini South (31.1 hours) 1.16 

From our NTAC: 4 proposals (3 GMOS + 1 NIRI) to Gemini North (24.5 hours) 1 

4 proposals (3 GMOS + 1 T-ReCS) to Gemini South (27.9 hours) 1 

From ITAC: 3 proposals (3 GMOS) to Gemini North (14.8 hours) 0.6 

3 proposals (2 GMOS + 1 T-ReCS) to Gemini South (22.1 hours) 0.82 

Phase II experience (2004B and 2005A so far…) 

2004B was our first complete run since observing database was implemented. 

• One program did not complete their phaseII at all (PI claims didn´t know time had been 

awarded…) 

• Another (Band 4) program was completed late due to similar communication problems. 

Research group changed contact address and phase II was completed. 

• Remaining programs, several of them including GMOS pre-imaging were completed on 

time (or not too late) 

2005A strong deadline is already showing its effect, as everyone is trying to make it before 

Feb.10 th . 

• NGO reviewers did not receive a copy of emails sent to PIs as in 2004B. We found that 

useful in previous semester. 

Users comments/questions: 

• Mask design software is not too friendly, particularly when PIs found at the last step that 

pixscale had to be changed and start over again… 

• Is there a way of producing a printout of the whole program? Or another method that 

helps an overall check of the program? 

• Could it be possible to “import” phaseI xml file to the OT in order to check for issues 

that turn out to be important during phaseII preparation (such as availability of OIWFS 

for dithering or offsets)? 

Other issues 

• New Argentinean Gemini Scientist (Rubén Diaz, OAC) 

• New NGO staff member (Carlos Saffe, OAC) 


9

Australia Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Warrick Couch 

Phase 1: 

The 2005A semester proposal round for Gemini telescope time was a strong improvement 

compared to the low demand we have experienced in previous “A” semesters. Australia received 

a total of 22 proposals for 2005A: 9 for Gemini-North, 12 for Gemini-South and 1 for Keck 

(HIRES). Ten of these were “joint” proposals and 2 requested time in the classical mode 

(excluding the Keck/HIRES proposal). Not surprisingly the GMOS instruments were again the 

most popular, garnering 8 applications for time on GN and 7 for GS. Once again there were no 

proposals received for the MICHELLE mid-infrared imager and spectrometer. 

The oversubscription rates were 1.23 for GN and 2.02 for GS. The combined oversubscription 

rate was 1.60. Details of the 22 proposals received are summarized in the following two tables: 

AustralianTime 

Requested (hrs.) 

Telescope 

GMOS 

North 

GMOS 

South 

GNIRS 

Keck/ 

HIRES 

NIR 

I 

NIRI- 

Altair Phoenix T-ReCS 

Gemini North 55.25 (12.0) 18.0 4.0 77.25 

Tot. Gemini 

Time (hrs.) 

Gemini South 91.82 8.50 5.0 9.75 115.07 

Grand Total 55.25 91.82 8.50 (12.0) 18.0 4.0 5.0 9.75 192.32 

# of Proposals 

Telescope 

GMOS 

North 

GMOS 

South 

GNIRS 

Keck/ 

HIRES 

NIRI 

NIRI- 

Altair Phoenix T-ReCS Total 

Gemini North 6.5 1 1 1 9.5 

Gemini South 8.5 2 1 1 12.5 

Grand Total 6.5 8.5 2 1 1 1 1 1 22 

The TAC process and packaging of the results to send to Gemini went very smoothly this past 

semester. The AusGO was the first national office to submit the completed TAC results on to 

Gemini headquarters in Hilo. 

The PIT proposal submission software continued to work in a stable fashion with only some 

minor “hiccups”. 

As in earlier semesters, the need for forthcoming results from previous allocations of Gemini 

time was an important factor during the TAC process. For the 2005A semester, the TAC 

deliberations resulted in 20 proposals being forwarded to Gemini. 

Phase II 

Based on current reports, about half of the Phase IIs were submitted by the early deadline. Phase 

II proceeded quite smoothly, with an average of ~2 iterations between observer and NGO 

support scientist to get programs ready for submission to Gemini. After programs were 

submitted 'for activation', response from Gemini was generally found to be quick and thorough. 

The OT was relatively bug free in general. The documentation was generally considered 

adequate and the OT examples were highly praised (though there’s room for more of them!). 

Some troubles were reported with finding information on the Gemini web pages – the 

information was there, but hard to find and dispersed over many pages. 

General News: 


10

1. Paul Francis has taken over from Warrick Couch as Australian Gemini Project Scientist. The 

office is thus nominally now at Mt Stromlo Observatory, though the workload is as dispersed 

around Australia as ever – and mostly being done by the same people. 


11

Brazil Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Max Abans 

1 – Brazilian Proposals 2005A 

1.1 – Phase I and Phase II 

As for the submitted proposals for Semester 2005A, a total of 33.32 hours at Gemini North have 

been requested, representing an oversubscription of 1.33. For Gemini South, 51.44 hours have 

been requested, resulting in an oversubscription of 1.84. Table 1 displays the final allocated 

time schedule for the Brazilian proposals after ITAC evaluation. 

Table 1: Phase I/II – Brazilian 2005A – Final Telescope Time Allocation 

Requested Time Allocated Time 

Instrument Proposals 

[hours] 

[hours] 

GMOS North 7 32.07 23.82 

GMOS South 8 28.60 14.04 

GNIRS 3 12.84 7.9 

Michelle 1 1.25 0.0 

Phoenix 1 5.0 5.0 

T-ReCS 2 5.0 0.0 

Total 22 84.76 50.76 

1.2 – Suggestions for the improvement of Phase I–II processes 

In the last two OpsWG meetings, at Waikoloa and Sydney, I highlighted that we have realized 

that, in some occasions, that proposals approved by the NTAC suffer from some typically 

technical problems as described below (e.g. based on the GMOS experience): 

(1) The target is in a field lacking suitable bright guiding stars (OIWFS stars). 

(2) The only suitable guiding star is so far, that it compromises the science observations with 

longslit and IFU. 

(3) The suitable OIWFS star compromises the longslit angle position. 

Our colleague, Mariângela de Oliveira-Abans, also raised this issue in the NGO meeting in 

Victoria, Canada. 

Then again, we strongly recommend the implementation of the "field tool" of the OT into the 

PIT for the next semester. This will help PIs to improve their proposals and facilitate the NTAC 

members’ work by allowing them to check the technical viability of executing the projects "right 

from the start". 


12

2 – Brazilian Questions 

I would like to submit some issues for appreciation, which we wish that could be taken into 

account. As a small partner, we would like that the Ops. WG derived some resolutions about 

them, when applicable. 

1. Let us examine closely the change of the size of Band 1 and the elimination of Band 4. 

2- Let us spend a few minutes discussing about Band 1 programs: what is the executed 

percentage? What about the data quality? 

3- Again we ask the following: Gemini keeps careful track of the telescope time used. The 

Brazilian community thinks it should be possible to have, at the end of each semester, a short 

and compact report on each program, highlighting the following points: 

The overall conditions of the completely executed programs (e.g. quality data, weather 

conditions, seeing) 

For the partially executed programs, the reasons for this partiality: (i) weather conditions, (ii) 

instrumental failure, (iii) problems with the program itself, (iv) queue order, to mention a 

few. NOTE: Point (iii) is important to find out how well the NGOs, NTACs and contact 

scientists have been working. 

Not executed programs: the reasons why! 

3 – Brazilian Gemini Support 

3.1 – Training 

As NGO, we continue to successfully provide the Brazilian Gemini community with instrument 

support. However, to improve our efficiency even more, the Brazilian NGO is still trying to 

manage to establish a program that envisages its staff training at the Gemini facilities during 

Phases II processes in 2005. 

As a small partner, we define our participation in the support/training at Gemini from now on as 

“Phase II-Support”. That means we wish to concentrate the efforts to improve our expertise to 

support Phase II. We are also interested in running “queue runs”, but we do not have enough 

personnel for those duties at the present time. 

4 – Gemini Public Information and Outreach Network 

The Brazilian NGO has had the opportunity to intensify the outreach activities and as such bring 

Gemini closer to the public attention. Brazilian Gemini results and other Gemini highlights have 

been widely presented in about eight major national events during the second semester. Several 

talks, congresses and fairs, videoconferences, open-door events and star parties reached about 


13

19,000 people throughout Brazil. School children, teachers and senior citizens are still important 

targets. 

Two events deserve special attention: 

a) the workshop entitled “Science with Gemini and SOAR Telescopes”, sponsored by the 

Brazilian Instituto do Milênio MEGALIT on the science already made and yet to be made with 

those telescopes as well as the related outreach activities. It took place at the IAG-USP, São 

Paulo, from December 6 to 9, 2005. MEGALIT has supported the distribution of 10,000 CD-R 

with hypertexts and slide presentations to 6,000 schools of which students participated in the 

Brazilian Astronomy Olympiad; the Brazilian NGO has contributed with a presentation which 

presents the Gemini Observatory. 

b) the VIII Brazilian Workshop on Teaching of Astronomy, where Mariângela presented 

Gemini's StarTeachers, Family ASTRO and Journey Through the Universe programs at a round 

table for Brazilian astronomers and experts in education as examples of well-succeeded 

initiatives in other countries. 

5 – The Mask-cutting machine 

The Third Amendment to the Gemini Agreement has been signed by the Brazilian Minister of 

Science and Technology and now become effective. This means it could start the process of 

purchasing the Mask Cutting Machine, foreseen as payment, on behalf of Brazil, of the financial 

obligations arising from the Third Amendment. The mask cutting machine shall be located at 

the precincts of Gemini South at Cerro Pachon, in Chile. The Gemini Directorate shall define the 

specifications for the mask cutting machine and identify, in collaboration with the Brazilian 

National Gemini Office a provider for the machine. Gemini shall consult SOAR before 

specifying the machine in order to assure that it can also be used for cutting masks for SOAR´s 

Goodman Spectrograph. 

6 – The next-generation Gemini instrumentation 

The Brazilian community continues the discussion about the new instrumentation for the Gemini 

Observatory; the cost, the science and how it should be used by the community are a concern. 


14

Canadian Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Dennis Crabtree 

Canadian response to the 2005A Call for Proposals was gratifying. The details of the 50 

proposals received are included in the following two tables. The subscription rate on Gemini- 

South was significantly lower than that for Gemini-North (1.4 vs. 3.4). The combined 

subscription rate was 2.4. There were no major issues during Phase I which ran quite smoothly. 

Canadian Time 

Requested (hours) 

Telescope 

AcqCam 

GMOS 

North 

GMOS 

South GNIRS HIRES Michelle NIRI NIRI-Altair Phoenix T-ReCS Total 

Gemini North 230.35 33 10 270.2 173.5 543.55 

Gemini South 20 160.44 14 40 13.95 248.39 

Grand Total 20 230.35 160.44 14 33 10 270.2 173.5 40 13.95 791.94 

# of Proposals 

Telescope 

AcqCam 

GMOS 

North 

GMOS 

South GNIRS HIRES Michelle NIRI NIRI-Altair Phoenix T-ReCS Total 

Gemini North 13 2 1 7 6 29 

Gemini South 1 14 1 2 3 21 

Grand Total 1 13 14 1 2 1 7 6 2 3 50 

The TAC process and packaging of the results to send to Gemini went well this past semester. 

The scheduling of the Keck time turned out to be very problematic. Keck had already scheduled 

the “Gemini slots” into their schedule before Gemini’s ITAC met. Two Canadian proposals 

were granted a total of 3 nights (2.5 and 0.5 nights) of Keck time but the Gemini slot conflicted 

with conference travel for the primary PI and was too bright to achieve the science of the 

primary program. After much iteration the time was split into two 1.5 night blocks. Thanks to 

Barbara Schaefer at Keck for being so flexible! We need to think the time exchange with Keck 

through a bit more and see if we can avoid this type of issue in the future. 

The Phase II process has gone fairly smoothly this semester. PIs are obviously reading the 

information on the Web and even first time users are getting a lot of Phase II aspects correct. 

The Mid-Term Review of the Canadian LRP has been released and is available at: 

http://www.casca.ca/lrp/mtr_approved.pdf. The MTR gives Gemini the highest priority for 

ongoing operations support and endorse the Aspen instrumentation program. 

The CGO published Gemini updates in the September and December newsletters of the 

Canadian Astronomical Society. 

The CGO worked with the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (main amateur group) to 

distribute a copy of the Gemini CD to their 5000+ members. 

The CGO and Canadian Gemini Scientist ran an imaging contest for Canadian amateur 

astronomers. One hour of imaging time was available on each of Gemini and CFHT. The plan is 

to present the winning clubs with their images at the CASCA meeting in Montreal in May. 


15

Chile Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Sebastian Lopez 

Phase I: 

The Chilean 2005A proposal deadline was on October 1st, and the statistics were: 

Time requested GMOS-S: 164.9 h in 8 proposals 

Time requested T-ReCS: 11.0 h in 1 proposal 

Time requested GNIRS: 21.5 h in 1 proposal 

Time requested Phoenix: 35.0 h in 1 proposal 

Time requested Acqu: 21.5 h in 1 proposal 

Total 254.4 h in 12 proposals 

Subscription factor = 1.8 

Out of these 12 proposals, 4 are joint proposals: CH+BR+US+AU (Phoenix), 

CH+CA, (GMOS-S), CH+UK+US (GMOS-S), CH+BR (T-ReCS). 

The proposal statistics shows a subscription factor of 1.8 with GMOS-S further being the most 

requested instrument. A novelty in this semester was the relatively high number (4) of joint 

proposals. 

Upon Gemini suggestion the submission mechanism was changed from simple e-mail to PIT 

submission and the first Chilean phase I in this new mode went smoothly. 

Pre-TAC technical assessment was done (in general I see carefully prepared proposals in there 

technical part) and the TAC finally ranked 7 proposals. Total awarded time was 141.7 hours. Of 

these, 4 are GMOS-S programs (1 of them Joint program), 1 GNIRS, and 1 Phoenix (Joint 

program). There are 5 nights (35%) allocated for classical programs with Chilean participation. 

Phase II: 

Phase II has gone smoothly. There has been a good interaction with PIs. The instrument 

information on the webpages has become much clearer, which speeds up the process at this 

NGO. My load of work was lightened by M. Bergmann at Gemini who assumed motu proprio 

the check of one GMOS program directly. 

None of the (queue) Chilean programs had submission delays in Phase II. 

Issues: 

I could not attend one of the December training sessions (on GNIRS) because we could not 

connect to the BCNet MCU in Vancouver, although we apparently had registered in advance. 


16

United Kingdom Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Rachel Johnson 

Phase I 

For the 2005A proposal round the UK received 82 proposals for 1728 hours - 51 proposals and 

1129.1 hours in the North, 28 proposals and 552 hours in the South, 2 proposals for North & 

South for 43 hours and 1 HIRES proposals for 4 hours. 

The split by instruments is given in the following table: 

Gemini North 

Gemini South 

# props hours # props hours 

GMOS-N 23 419 GMOS-S 20 387 

NIRI 16 398 GNIRS 7 95 

NIRI+Altair 3 38 T-ReCS 3 87 

Michelle 13 290 Phoenix 1 10 

total 55 1145 31 579 

Other 

HIRES 1 4 

Note that this table includes 5 proposals for 2 instruments. The times above are uncorrected 

for wrongly estimated overheads. 

The time available to the UK in 2005A is 304 hours in the North and 295 hours in the South, 

giving a total oversubscription of 2.9, 3.8 in the North and 2 in the South. For comparison 

oversubscription in 2004B was 2.5(N) and 2.6(S) and for 2004A it was 3.5(N) and 1.1 (S). 

46 proposals (the two proposals for North and South were both split) for 686.9 hours were 

forwarded to the ITAC of which 39 for 561 hours were included in the queue. Additionally 2 

proposals for 22 hours of Michelle Compensation Time were forwarded to ITAC. At the ITAC 

another 10 hours of Michelle CT was added to one of these, a joint proposal, as the US part of 

the time was not forwarded. 

Long term status was awarded for the Michelle compensation time proposals, for 12 hours in 

05B, 14 hours in 06A and 4 hours in 06B. The PIs will submit an update + their original 

proposal via the PIT for the upcoming semesters. These will go through the Phase-1 and Phase-2 

process as normal. 

The Phase-I process was smoother than 2004B and the PIWI worked well. The bug in PIT 

caused by submission without a partner country affected 2 UK submissions before the NGOs 

were notified of the workaround. 

Phase-I questions and suggestions: 

• No-one in the UK applied for the 90%ile or ‘any’ cloud cover bins, even though it was 

suggested to PI’s that they include in the technical case ways that (a subset of) their 

science goals could be obtained with worse observing conditions (nobody did). Could 

this problem be alleviated by changing the cloud cover bin boundaries (eg having a 

boundary at 1 mag extinction) ? 

• The GMOS 75% efficiency in Phase-I severely underestimates the efficiency as 

calculated in Phase-II for many GMOS programs (Dennis made this point in the last 

OpsWG) e.g. long (30min) exposures with MOS or IFU have efficiency more like 90%. 


17

This leads to some proposals getting more time than they need, and therefore to some 

getting none. 

• In PIT, if no partners are selected this should generate a fatal error. 

From the UK TAC: 

• Are classical programs still actively encouraged ? 

• The UK would like to offer long term status for all instruments. 

• Could there be a place in the PIT asking if the proposal has been submitted to other 

observatories for that round. 

Phase II 

The Phase-II process was generally smooth. 

The OT databases were down for several days to test the new OT. This caused problems for 

some programs (eg Isobel’s) who use the OT to check the status of their observations, and who 

needed to make updates during this time. The OT database was also down 23-26 November 

without any information on the web site. The OT was released some days after the originally 

planned date (10 th not 1st Dec). The bug and re-release of the OT did not cause problems for any 

UK PIs. 

The training sessions on mid-IR and GNIRS were useful as was the ‘what’s new for this 

semester’ section of the Phase-II. 

We received about half of the Phase-II for the first deadline. 

Phase-II questions and suggestions: 

• Is there any way to have a parallel OT database whilst the new OT is being checked. 

• The classical deadline is ‘2 weeks before the block in which your observations are 

scheduled’. PI’s seem to read this as ‘2 weeks before my run’. We find this a bit short. 

Could we change it to ‘3 weeks before your run’ ? 

Other news from the UK 

The second UK 8mUG meeting was held in September 2004 with much useful discussion which 

fed into the October GSC meeting. The next meeting is planned for March 2005. UKNGO staff 

have been on 4 support runs and 2 training runs in 2004B. Ilona S¨ochting did 2 of these support 

runs whilst on a long term visit to Gemini-S during Dec04-Jan05, which she found very useful 

and enjoyable. During her stay she created a GMOS Phase-II cookbook, and started to look at 

GMOS mask making without GMOS pre-imaging. 


18

University of Hawaii Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Richard Wainscoat 

Phase 1: 

No major problems were experienced. Proposals were initially accepted on the UH form, and 

successful proposals transferred into the Phase I Tool. For the first time, proposals were also 

accepted directly from the Phase I Tool. Only one proposal was submitted in this manner – the 

single joint proposal – for which this was the only method of submission possible. The PIT 

proposal acceptance software was installed fairly smoothly, but documentation of the software is 

a little scarce. The software doesn’t seem to be getting much maintenance or support – some 

attention to this may be necessary in the future. 

Proposal statistics were: 

GMOS-N: 6 queue proposals – 34.2 hours; 2 classical proposals – 4 nights 

NIRI: 1 classical proposal – 2 nights 

NIRI/Altair: 1 queue proposal – 11 hours; 1 classical proposal – 2 nights 

Michelle: 1 queue proposal – 9 hours 

The UH TAC also examined proposals for Keck and Subaru to determine whether any of these 

would be better done on Gemini. 

Total time requested was 134.2 hours, available was 122 hours, and the oversubscription factor 

was 1.1. The low oversubscription is probably a reaction to the high oversubscription by UH of 

Gemini in 2004B – unsuccessful applicants last semester sought observing time elsewhere. UH 

oversubscription was high in 2004B partly as a result of a fairly large accounting correction 

applied that semester. 

The Time Allocation Committee moved one proposal for classical time to Subaru, and made 

other changes to requests, allocating 9.2 hours to 10 proposals. The remaining 30 hours were 

scheduled as 3 nights of UH Director’s Time. The Time Allocation Committee changed small 

requests for classical observing 

In 04B, a substantial fraction of UH proposals were joint proposals with other agencies. In 05A, 

only one proposal was a joint proposal. This may also partially explain the fluctuation in 

oversubscription. A contributing factor to the fluctuation is likely that one of the stronger joint 

collaborations is in the area of star formation, which is better observed in the “B” semester in the 

north. 

UH was ready to submit its Phase I proposals on October 29. This was before Gemini was ready 

to accept them. The UH TAC meets earlier than most other agencies, because we must meet a 

deadline to provide our proposals to Keck by approximately Nov 1 (or May 1). This means that 

UH allocations can be ready much earlier than the typical Gemini deadline for PIT proposal 

submission. This semester, early submission was necessary because of an overseas trip by 

Richard Wainscoat. The changes from sftp to ftp caused some confusion – hopefully the 

proposal submission mechanism can be stabilized. 

Technical reviews of Canadian, UK, and Australian Keck HIRES proposals were performed. 

The HIRES proposals were in general technically sound. Several proposals requested rather 


19

short “queue style” amounts of time – not appropriate for classically scheduled observing. More 

careful identification of the nights that will be scheduled on Keck, and adherence by the ITAC to 

that schedule appears to be essential to the successful future of this program. 

Phase II: 

No major problems were experienced. Errors were fairly typical; some users are becoming 

better; a few have been somewhat sloppy making careless mistakes. 

The new hard deadline is a big improvement. It allows the review of the Phase II programs to 

be focused in a short period of time, rather than dragging out indefinitely in a disruptive manner. 

All UH applicants were asked to complete their Phase II programs early – no later than 1 week 

after the early deadline. I took his approach because of the timing of the OpsWG meeting and 

my consequent travel to this meeting. 

As of February 2, all but 2 UH queue programs are “Ready,” or close to ready. Both programs 

that are still at “Phase 2” are from the same recalcitrant PI who has been warned many times 

about the hard deadline; he argues that his target is later in the semester, so it cannot be observed 

right now. 

Some further discussion by the OpsWG of the meaning of the Phase II deadline would be useful. 

The hard deadline was suggested by the GSC, and has not yet been discussed by the OpsWG. I 

worry that a PI can wait until February 10, and then slap together something that has a lot of 

problems, yet still technically meets the deadline. This could put unnecessary pressure on the 

NGO to ready the proposal in the next week. 

It is still hard to find information on the Gemini web pages, and hard to navigate them . For 

mature instruments, such as GMOS, it would be helpful if a printed manual (e.g., PDF format) 

could be produced. 

Other issues: 

Richard Wainscoat is presently the sole person at UH responsible for NGO duties. I expect that 

UH will hire a new support astronomer to replace Andrew Pickles, and that this person will take 

on some of the Gemini NGO workload. 


20

US Gemini Office Report 

Submitted by Taft Armandroff 

Phase I: 

The NOAO Gemini Science Center (NGSC) saw enthusiastic demand from the U.S. community 

for Gemini observing time for semester 2005A. One hundred twenty proposals were received 

for Gemini North: 60 for GMOS-North, 35 for NIRI alone, 12 for NIRI with the Altair adaptive 

optics system, and 22 for Michelle. One hundred fourteen U.S. proposals requested Gemini 

South: 39 for GNIRS, 34 for GMOS-South, 24 for Phoenix, 23 for T-ReCS, and 1 for the 

Acquisition Camera. In total, 217 U.S. Gemini proposals sought 475 nights on the two Gemini 

telescopes. The numbers of U.S. Gemini proposals and nights requested represent record highs. 

The oversubscription factors of 5.1 at Gemini North and 4.2 at Gemini South demonstrate 

healthy community engagement. 

The demand for Keck observing time on HIRES, as part of the Gemini time trade, is not 

included in the above statistics. The reason for this omission is the fact that NOAO has offered 

a modest amount Keck time to the U.S. community based on the Telescope System 

Instrumentation Program (TSIP). Thus, NOAO fulfils U.S. requests for Keck HIRES time via 

both the TSIP nights and the Gemini time-trade nights. In total, 7 Keck HIRES proposals were 

received for semester 2005A, requesting a total of 11.5 nights. 

The NOAO Telescope Time Allocation Committee (TAC) reviewed the proposals, and the 

NGSC Staff performed technical assessments. The 92 most highly ranked proposals were 

forwarded to Gemini for ITAC review. Thirteen approved U.S. Gemini programs requested 

classical observing and were scheduled in this mode. One U.S. Keck HIRES program was 

scheduled using the Gemini time-trade arrangement. 

The Phase I process ran smoothly in the U.S. However, a few issues arose during Phase I. 

These are listed in the spirit of improvement for next semester: 

• The lack of a Gemini integration time calculator (ITC) for Michelle in spectroscopy 

mode was a problem for both proposers and NGSC Staff performing technical reviews. 

An ITC is provided for Michelle in imaging mode. NGSC Staff recommend that the 

Michelle ITC be generalized to include all spectroscopy modes to be offered in semester 

2005B. 

• The T-ReCS ITC was taken off-line in September 2004 (because of problems with the 

calculations). While we support the decision to take the ITC off-line for “repair,” the 

length of time that the ITC has been unavailable has negatively impacted Phase I and II 

for 2005A. The U.S. strongly recommends making the updated T-ReCS ITC available 

before/at the release of the 2005B Call for Proposals. 

• The U.S. TAC wishes to see the PIT enhanced so that it contains explicit mention of the 

proposers’ previous Gemini time allocations and a description of whether the data has 

been published and/or analyzed. The NOAO proposal form contains a section where the 

proposer must list and explain previous time allocations, and this could serve as an 

example for PIT. Such an addition to PIT was discussed and supported at the October 

2004 GSC meeting and the 2005A ITAC meeting. 

• The Gemini Web pages continue to be an issue. We applaud the recent update of some 

of the pages (e.g., GNIRS). However, too many of the instrument Web pages are out of 

date, and too many policy and/or procedure changes that have occurred during the past 

few years are not yet reflected on the Web pages. The NOAO Users’ Committee 


21

ecently criticized the Gemini Web pages, citing outdated information and difficulty in 

finding information required to submit proper Phase I and II programs. One of the 

contributors to user dissatisfaction with the Gemini Web pages is the lack of consistency 

between instruments in how important information is presented. An example of this 

inconsistency is the occasional “burying” of important information required for a proper 

Phase II in the “Hot News” or other less mainstream pages. 

• As regards the Gemini Web deficiencies described above, NGSC suggests that the 

Operations Working Group develop a process to involve the NGO Staff in identifying 

issues with the Web pages, contributing to solving any deficiencies, and reviewing drafts 

of Web page updates. 

• The mechanism that allows the NGOs to mirror the Gemini Web pages has been taken 

out of service due to security concerns. We had asked that it be reinstated in a more 

secure form. Thus, whenever the Gemini Web server is down, there is no alternate Web 

site(s) to allow access to any of the useful Gemini Web information. 

Phase II: 

NGSC staff performed Phase II review, and related proposer interactions, for U.S. proposals. 

NGSC reminded all U.S. P.I.s (on December 22 and January 30) of the Phase II deadlines, their 

great importance, and the help available to them through NGSC. Individual NGSC contact 

scientists also sent individualized reminders and offers of Phase II assistance to the investigators 

they had been assigned. For 2005A, the Phase II checking and related P.I. interactions are going 

well. Before or at the early-in-semester P.I. Phase II deadline (January 12), 14 U.S. programs 

had submitted targets to NGSC. By the corresponding NGO deadline (end of January 21), 

NGSC had worked with all of these P.I.s and forwarded 19 Phase II programs to Gemini (the 

number sent is larger than the number received by the P.I. deadline because we were able to 

check/interact/fix some programs that arrived after the P.I. deadline). 

The following difficulties or inefficiencies arose during the 2005A Phase II process to date. 

These are given in the spirit of continuously improving the Phase II process, to the benefit of the 

Gemini communities. We appreciate the fact that some of our suggestions from the last such 

report have been implemented. 

• NGSC Staff recommend that the Observing Tool (OT) be enhanced to contain a selfchecking 

capability. A check button should be added that would perform straightforward 

mechanical checks: for example, checks of the targets in the Phase I vs. Phase II 

proposals, checks of the observing conditions granted vs. those contained in the Phase II, 

missing “observe” command, etc. This would greatly reduce the time required to 

complete a Phase II check and increase checking accuracy, benefiting Gemini and the 

NGOs. It could also allow P.I.s to do some self-checking before submission. 

• NGSC Staff recommend that the OT enable NGO staff to highlight and fetch multiple 

programs with a single fetch from the database. 

• NGSC has been advising U.S. P.I.s to use the OT libraries. This often strongly increases 

the P.I.’s ability to complete their Phase II without major errors. NGSC Staff 

recommend that the OT libraries be easily available within the OT for all instruments. It 

is also important for Gemini to check the OT libraries each semester to insure that they 

do not contain errors / procedural violations. If the rules for the upcoming semester are 

well defined, the NGOs could help check whether the OT libraries are completely in 

compliance before Phase II commences. 


22

• The Phase II skeletons, based on the Phase I submission, that are the starting point for 

P.I.s, should be modified to be closer to what we are requesting the P.I.s to submit. 

• NGSC continues to receive P.I. feedback advocating for GMOS mask making from preexisting 

images or astrometry of sufficient accuracy (i.e., not requiring GMOS preimaging). 

This would certainly simplify the process of securing GMOS multi-object 

spectroscopy. 

• NGSC carefully tracks the status of each U.S. Phase II program. The Interactive 

Observing Database Snapshot page 

(http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/schedules/obsStatus/ODBConfigGS05A.html) has aided 

this tracking significantly, and NGSC appreciates this innovation. One deficiency of this 

page is that the status is updated only once per day. It would be helpful if this page were 

updated with a more rapid cadence. One suggestion is to update the page with the same 

cadence as the “Execution Status” pages 

(http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/schedules/obsStatus/ObsStatusNorth.html#GN-2005A-Q- 

1), which is “every few hours.” Another possibility is to automatically trigger an update 

of the pages when more than some fixed number of observations have changed status 

since the previous update. 

• Data from previous Gemini programs often play a role in specifying Phase II 

instructions. NGSC received some complaints again this semester regarding the 

unusually slow pace of data distribution from Gemini to P.I.s. The two instruments 

involved in the complaints were GNIRS and Phoenix. One set of Phoenix data, observed 

in June 2004, was received by the P.I. in late January 2005. The U.S. recommends that 

we speed data distribution to P.I.s, presumably via electronic distribution via the GSA. 

Rapid data distribution is one important step toward rapid publication. 

• As NGSC interacts with the community on Phase II, it is clear that there is interest in an 

eavesdropping mode. NGSC recommends that the Operations Working Group explore 

how to enable eavesdropping pathfinder(s). NGSC is enthusiastic to participate in such 

an effort. 

Other: 

The following NGSC astronomers visited Gemini to take part in queue observing during 

semester 2004B. The first table shows visits for standard queue observing. 


23

Dates NGSC Astronomer Purpose 

8/14-8/18 Lucas Macri GMOS-N queue 

9/21-9/28 

Jay Elias 

GNIRS commissioning + 

queue 

9/23-9/26 

10/4-10/6 

10/7-10/9 

Rachel Mason 

Patrice Bouchet 

Marcel Bergmann 

Michelle queue 

T-ReCS commissioning + 

queue 

GMOS-S queue 

10/9-10/20 Tom Matheson GMOS-N training + queue 

10/29-11/2 Jay Elias GNIRS queue 

11/8-11/11 Marcel Bergmann GMOS-N queue 

12/11-12/13 Verne Smith GMOS-S training 

12/11-12/15 Marcel Bergmann GMOS-S queue 

1/28-1/31 Rachel Mason Michelle queue 

The second table shows NGSC support at Gemini South for Phoenix observing and Hokupaa-85 

commissioning during semester 2004B. NGSC provides expert support for these two 

instruments. 

Dates NGSC Astronomer Purpose 

8/6-8/10 Bob Blum Phoenix queue + payback 

8/22-8/25 Bob Blum Hoku-85 commissioning 

8/29-8/31 Andrei Tokovinin Hoku-85 commissioning 

12/16-12/17 Knut Olsen Phoenix queue 

12/18-12/19 Bob Blum Phoenix queue + payback 

12/19-12/23 Verne Smith Phoenix queue + payback 

1/20-1/27 Bob Blum Hoku-85 commissioning 

1/20-1/22 Andrei Tokovinin Hoku-85 commissioning 

Ramon Galvez and Michael Warner of NOAO improved the Abu read-noise performance in 

advance of the Hokupaa-85 January run. Galvez worked with Manuel Lazo and Hernan Solis of 

Gemini South to provide support for the Phoenix and Abu WFIRE electronics systems. 

NGSC organized a booth for the January 2005 American Astronomical Society meeting in San 

Diego, California. The NGSC booth featured displays on how to propose for Gemini observing 

opportunities, brochures on available Gemini instruments, posters on new Gemini observing 

opportunities, and tutorials on preparing Phase II programs. Numerous community members 

visited the NGSC booth. 

NGSC added two new staff members since the most recent report to the Operations Working 

Group meeting. Verne Smith started on 1 August 2004 as NGSC Deputy Director. Tom 

Matheson commenced employment as NGSC Assistant Astronomer on 1 September 2004; he is 

supporting U.S. GMOS users. Both Smith and Matheson perform all of their functional duties 

within NGSC (not shared with other NOAO divisions). 


24

Meeting #8 - Gemini Observatory

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?