University Facilities Working Group 3.3

1. University Facilities Working Group 3.3 Decadal plan for 2006-2015 Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

2. Objectives of this meeting An open forum to gather information and community feedback on: • currently operating University Facilities • intended upgrades or closures of these Facilities • new Facilities being built or planned • satisfaction level with the current role and operation of Facilities • needs for new Facilities and infrastructure • opportunities in funding of Facilities • opportunities for national and international collaboration Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

3. Unique role of University Facilities • Research • Graduate and Undergraduate Training • Outreach Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

4. Types of University Facilities Research class telescopes: MOST SSO 2.3m 30m Ceduna Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

5. Types of University Facilities Small observatories and planetaria: Canopus Observatory - Tasmania Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

6. Types of University Facilities National and international collaborations: MOPRA (UNSW+ATNF) CANGAROO Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

7. Non-traditional types of University Facilities • Computing Centres • Involvement in Virtual Observatory • Networks of Small Robotic Optical Telescopes • Excellence Centres (eg. Theoretical Research Centres) Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

8. In the next decade… • What types of university facilities are needed and wanted by astronomical community? • Can universities afford to fund the cutting edge research facilities? • Should universities invest in development of small, niche application facilities? • Are university facilities adequate for training the newgeneration of astronomers (see Rachel’s survey of PhD students)? • Do we need to increase a visibility of university facilities? • What strategies should be implemented to maintain necessary levels of funding? • University Facilities are sometimes viewed as second grade compared with National and International facilities. How can this view be changed? Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

9. Example of proposed niche facility: DIVA (The Dedicated Variability Array) David Jauncey, John Dickey, Mark Walker, L. Kedziora, J-P Macquart et al. • Small, cheap, wide band radio array dedicated to study variability and transient • phenomena in the Southern sky: • IDV source • Gamma-ray bursts • Multiwavelength observations of XRB outbursts • Special objects: SN 1987A and Sgr A* • Peculiar transient or variable sources detected by the xNTD Specifications of the ideal array: A few elements of 10-15m size Frequency range 0.5-22 GHz, min bandwidth 100 MHz but ~1 GHz Minimum sensitivity 20 mJy/min (to follow 10% variations in 100mJy source in 3s level in 30 minutes) Dish accuracy to 1mm for 10 GHz (for polarimetry) Multiple independent beams Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting

10. DIVA • Proposed location: • (two options) • A small antenna 10 -18m placed next to Hobart or Ceduna telescopes • with more elements progressively added as funding permits • Telescope with identical elements which could use the infrastructure of • the NTD or Mileura low-frequency array in WA • Initial or prototype DIVA: • upgraded 14m antenna in Hobart • -TERSS antenna operated by CSIRO Marine • -relocated and upgraded 18m antenna at Parkes • -using simple Local Oscilator system, voltages recorded to hard disk and transmitted • across the network to the software correlator (collaboration with Swinburne University) A stand-alone array in WA: Four 10-15m dishes ($50-$100K each) ATA-type 1-10 GHz feeds (~$10K each) Facilities and Infrastructure Working Groups Open Meeting