Thirty Meter Telescope

1. Thirty Meter Telescope Edward C. Stone Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee Feb 6, 2007

2. TMT Precursor Studies • Independently-conceived & independently-reviewed, point designs representing ~$6M total effort • CELT (UC+Caltech) • VLOT (Canada) • GSMT (NOAO/Gemini) • PUBLIC/PRIVATE/INTERNATIONAL partnership formed- June 2003 • Single reference design established by TMT in Nov 04

3. TMT Reference Design • 30m filled aperture, highly segmented • Ritchey Chretien two-mirror telescope • f/1 primary • f/15 final focus • Field of view 15 arcmin • Elevation axis in front of the primary • Wavelength coverage 0.31 – 28 µm • Operational zenith angle range 1° thru 65° • Instruments (and their associated AO systems) are located on large Nasmyth platforms, addressed by an articulated tertiary mirror. • Both seeing-limited and adaptive optics observing modes • AO system requirements and architecture defined • First generation instrument requirements defined

4. M1 segment and its support assembly OverviewTelescope Mounted Systems M2 assembly Laser Guide Star Facility M3 assembly

5. Primary Mirror Segments Keck segment • TMT segmented primary is a natural evolution of the Keck mirror • Keck: 36 segments, 1.8m dia • TMT: 492 segments, 1.4m dia (size independently selected by ESO) • Polishing and segment module fabrication must be “mass produced” to cost and quality • TMT is working with several industrial partners to compete production design, testing and cost • There are opportunities to save costs by coordinating with ESO

6. The Adaptive Optics Era is Here! Keck and Gemini Laser Guide Star Facilities

7. TMT.TEL.PRE.06.008.REL01 HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE KECK Courtesy: L. Sromovsky

8. TMT.TEL.PRE.06.008.REL01

9. 73 x 73 Actuator TMT AO Deformable Mirror

10. Tested Prototype Meets TMT Performance

11. Enclosure Configuration Calotte chosen : - Structurally efficient, most cost-effective - Minimum vignetting and best wind protection

12. TMT AO & Instrument Feasibility Studies • North American community invited to propose TMT instruments in early 2005 • 41 institutions responded, 16 collaborative proposals emerged • 12 feasibility studies were supported • NFIRAOS (HIA) • IRIS (UCLA and Caltech) • MIRES (NOAO and U Hawaii) • WFOS (HIA) and GLAO at Caltech • PFI (LLNL, JPL, U de Montreal) • HROS: 2 studies - UCSC and U Colorado • IRMOS: 2 studies - U Florida and Caltech • ~ 200 scientists and engineers involved at 34 US, 10 Canadian, and 2 French institutions

13. Site Testing • Robotic data collection underway at 3 sites in Chile, San Pedro Martir (Mexico), and Mauna Kea, HI • The most comprehensive astronomical site survey work ever undertaken • Site Requirements Document: • includes data evaluation/figure of merit strategy • primarily astronomical “weather” data under consideration: clear nights, atmospheric stability, mean temperature and temperature variations, etc. • Site data evaluated quarterly • Clear differences between the sites are now evident • Final site selection in 2008

14. TMT Design & Development Phase Jun 2003: Caltech & UC (CELTCO), AURA & Canada form TMT Board and agree to pursue equal shares of funding for DDP Apr 2004: DDP begins: Gary Sanders appointed PM, HQ in Pasadena Moore Foundation $35M, ACURA $17.5M, AURA $17.5M NSF Grant Nov 2004: Established Reference Design May 2006: Conceptual Design Review Sep 2006: Cost Review Nov 2006: NSF announced AURA’s withdrawal from TMT to assume role as GSMT Program Manager Jan 2006: Restructured DDP

15. Panel Bill Frazer, Chair Reinhard Genzel, MPE Roger Davies, Oxford David Tytler, UCSD Hilton Lewis, Keck Peter Gray, Gemini Paul Gilbert, Parsons Brinkerhoff Torben Andersen, Lund Mark Sarazin, ESO Mark Warner, ATST Jose Castro, GTC Bob Fugate, USAF Mariana de Kock, SALT Mark Colavita, JPL Keck Conceptual Design Review May 8 - 10 2006 Evaluate requirements, whether reference design meet requirements, technical feasibility, risk etc Observers: NSF, NRC Canada, Moore Foundation, Japan, GMT Cost Review Sep 26-29 2006 Assess cost estimation methods & contingency Observers: NSF, NRC Canada, Moore Foundation External Advisory Panel Reviews

16. Cost Review Report • “The Panel was extremely impressed by the quantity and quality of work that has been accomplished since the CoDR in May. You have a really excellent project team! In general, the cost estimating methodology is credible, and the risks appear to be well addressed in developing the contingency fund. The operations model is generally appropriate, and is a suitable basis for further planning.”

17. What’s Ahead • Complete Design & Development Phase (mid 2009) • Develop and review implementation proposal (mid 2007) • Expand current three-way partnership to realize the required funding for the facility, instruments/AO, and operations (public, private, or international) • Select site (mid 2008) • Construction phase (2009-2016) • First light with full mirror (2016) • Initial science nights (2016)

18. Goals • Timely implementation (JWST overlap, ESO 42m telescope) • Justify readiness and cost of GSMT to establish its priority in next Decadal Survey (2009) • Realize a public/private/international partnership for GSMT • Develop an NSF role during initial implementation that doesn’t require commitment of MREFC funds

19. A Way Forward • Develop criteria and process for selecting the GSMT design (including operations model, implementation approach, and funding plan) that will be evaluated and prioritized by the Decadal Survey • Criteria and process May 15, 2007 • Submit Implementation Plan mid 2008 • Selection mid 2009 • Robustly fund the current AURA grant for the design development of TMT and GMT through selection (funding to date has been limited) • Establish follow-on GSMT technology development program, leading to major equipment construction (e.g., instrumentation, AO) at later time (2013?)

20. Distant Galaxies – TMT+AO Hubble Resolution Hubble Deep Field Credit: M. Bolte TMT Resolution with Adaptive Optics M. Bolte