WSO/UV

1. WSO/UV A proposal for a Science Management Plan Draft I. Pagano

2. Summary Draft of the SMP as elaborated by Willem Wamsteker (as it is in the Spain proposal for ESA NLP support) Hot topics and criticisms Policy of other projects The New Proposal I. Pagano

3. From: Proposal to the Annual Call for Support to Nationally Led Projectssubmitted by SPC Spanish delegation • Program and National time distribution The WSO/UV is a fully open project following the recipes laid out in UN A/AC.105/723 Section IV. The scientific community of each country agreeing to participate (minimally the implementation of local Science Operations Centre) has essentially unrestricted access to the data obtained with WSO/UV. The decisions on Scientific and technical matters have been and will be continued to be addressed by the WIC (Section I.5.) I. Pagano

4. 27.5% 39% 27.5% ....continue Past deliberations in the WIC have led to some details of the science management plan as given below The project observing time is distributed as given below for the baseline 5 year mission (2 months of in-orbit testing and verification at L2 not included): • Total Observing time 5 years 1.6 x 10 8 sec. • Core Programme (see sections I.2.1 – 3) 6.4 x 10 7 sec. (744 days) • Calibration & Engineering 1.0 x 10 7 sec. (116 days) • National Time (Participating Countries) 4.3 x 10 7 sec. (500 days) • Open Observing time 4.3 x 10 7 sec. (500 days) I. Pagano

5. … continue • The Open Observing Time is allocated by an International panel of scientific experts. • The National Time (Participating Countries) is allocated by a national panel for each of the countries involved in the implementation process of WSO/UV. These contributions are either in Hardware, Launch or contributions to the Mission Operations. The respective shares in the total WSO/UV Project costs have been established and agreed between parties in the deliberations in the WIC Meeting (document on WSO web site WSO-VIL-PRG-SUM-0001). • The calibration and engineering time will of course be distributed according to the needs of the instruments in close cooperation with the groups building the instruments. This program part will be designed to make the data available in reduced form as soon as possible. • The Core Programme will be designed by a Core Programme Team, composed of members of the NWWG. This programme will be submitted to the WIC for final approval. • For all data an archival structure will be set up in close coordination with the Virtual Observatory Requirements. I. Pagano

6. Some COMMENTS before to go on From: Proposal to the Annual Call for Support to Nationally Led Projectssubmitted by SPC Spanish delegation • Program and National time distribution The WSO/UV is a fully open project following the recipes laid out in UN A/AC.105/723 Section IV. The scientific community of each country agreeing to participate (minimally the implementation of local Science Operations Centre) has essentially unrestricted access to the data obtained with WSO/UV. The decisions on Scientific and technical matters have been and will be continued to be addressed by the WIC (Section I.5.) True: norestrictions to be part of the collaboration BUT After the partners are all identified the WSO/UV project will be a “Russian – XX – YY – ZZ (et al) project” I. Pagano

7. From: Proposal to the Annual Call for Support to Nationally Led Projectssubmitted by SPC Spanish delegation • Program and National time distribution The WSO/UV is a fully open project following the recipes laid out in UN A/AC.105/723 Section IV. The scientific community of each country agreeing to participate (minimally the implementation of local Science Operations Centre)has essentially unrestricted access to the data obtained with WSO/UV. The decisions on Scientific and technical matters have been and will be continued to be addressed by the WIC (Section I.5.) What does it means? How to conceal this with a “Core Program” and “National Time”? I. Pagano

8. It is time to leave the concept of “open project” ? Let’s go on and see what happened with ESA. I. Pagano

9. From AWG response (ASTRO(2006)3) • “Given the small fraction (anticipated 4% as presented to the AWG) of the observing time available to the ESA community and the lack of a firm plan of a public data archive, the return to the ESA member state scientists is limited. Moreover, the proposal lacked a well developed science management plan approved by all participating agencies.” • Question: Why 4% only? Where they take this number? • It seems about the fractional cost according to the funds requested to ESA. I. Pagano

10. From Ana Ines Gomez de Castro e-mail (26 Jun 2006)Subject: Re: Science Management PlanDate: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:37:22 +0100 (CET)From: Ana Ines Gomez de Castro anai_gomez@mat.ucm.esTo: Norbert Kappelmann kappelmann@astro.uni-tuebingen.deCC: Isabella Pagano <ipa@oact.inaf.it>, Ana Ines Gomez de Castro <anai_gomez@mat.ucm.es>, Martin Barstow <mab@star.le.ac.uk> • Concerning the science management plan, I stated during the presentation, but it is not written in the application, a "modified" version on Willem’s original proposal (27% of observing time open to the whole world-wide astronomical community without having to contribute to the project was not realistic). I stated that 40% of the time will go to the core program (as stated in Willem's application) 5-7% of the time gone into calibration etc,,, 5% of the time to developing countries  within the WSO-UN spirit 40% guaranteed time to the project partners splitted into fractions proportional to the funding they provide I. Pagano

11. Hot topics (from free discussion between colleagues) • It is “politically” important to have a good fraction of “Open Time” for the international community. • It is relevant also for the “image” of the project in the international contest. • From an anonymous referee’ comment to a paper presenting the WSO Science: • “I suggest to add a remark (marginally pointed out in the Introduction) that WSO is intended for world wide use including especially  the developing countries (in spite of the fact that the 17 participating countries there is a scarse participation of developing countries). At any rate this point seems to me in contrast with the constitution of a WSO's "core programme". I. Pagano

12. From AWG response (ASTRO(2006)3) “ • The AWG recognizes that a follow-up to present/past UV missions is desirable, in particular to study plasmas over a large temperature range and to study the most abundant molecules. • The science case of WSO/UV focuses on: • aspects of the reionization of the universe, • early evolution of sun-like stars and • atmospheres of extra solar planets. • The AWG finds the science case, as presented, not sufficiently compelling: • The topics are limited and do not represent substantial advances with respect to current knowledge. • The science case is not supported by quantitative assessment of requirements versus mission performance. ” I. Pagano

13. Hot topics “It is a fashion in space science (which becomes a standard) to loudly announce one-two major goals of the mission. In fact, this is somewhat easy for dedicated missions like GALEX but rather difficult for such "all purpose" mission like WSO/UV. WSO/UV being properly figured is able to do many things at the edge of modern science. “ (from my dear friend Boris Shustov) My opinion is that we need to have a Core Program - not strictly confined to few items – reflecting the topical interests of our communitiesat the edge of modern science. I. Pagano

14. A personal view • Up to date we – the WIC – have done a good job to look for support from our agencies. • The project is now in a more mature phase. Major partners are identified. • It is time now to involve ask scientists of countries in which support has been allocated to be very active: • Es. In Italy, contemporary to the Phase A/B1 study of the FCU, the Italian community has to release a document with the main national science goals . • The Science Committee (=WIC?) has to take into account the national science documents to: • select the core program • allow the set-up of collaborations between the partners and • identify PIs for each science item in the core program. I. Pagano

15. Roadmap for us • Decide the time sharing policy (in my opinion the Willem proposal is not bad, but we can do some refining) • Decide rules about how to select the science program and who will do this: • Science Committee • TAC • Decide the policy after the extension period (5 years + 5 years) I. Pagano

16. Let’s give a look to the case of other project SMPs es: Beppo-SAX INTEGRAL I. Pagano

17. From Beppo-SAX SMP(Italian National project with a collaboration with the Neatherlands) • The observing program will be held flexible in order to accommodate those TOO for follow-up observations with the NFI. Furthermore the operation capability of BeppoSAX will allow to acquire the target within a few hours of its discovery. • The observations will be organized on the basis of a "Core Program", devoted to systematic studies with particular regard to scientific objectives that exploit SAX capabilities, and a "Guest Observer" program. • The time reserved to the Core Program is 80% the first year of the mission, decreasing in the following years. Participation in the Core Program is open to members of the national communities participating in the mission and will be regulated, along with applications for Guest Observer time, by the selection of proposals. This policy will allow the achievement of complex and systematic programs, leaving however ample time for smaller projects. I. Pagano

18. From Integral SMP: time policy I. Pagano

19. From Integral SMP: guaranteed time I. Pagano

20. From Integral SMPthe Science Team The INTEGRAL Science Working Team (ISWT) will monitor and advise on all aspects of INTEGRAL which affect its scientific performance. • The external members of the ISWT will be: • the Principal Investigators (PIs) whose instruments have been selected for flight • the Principal Investigator who will lead the international collaboration to establish and operate the ISDC, • Mission Scientists – being independent of the PI teams – who provide scientific input to the programme and advise on science operations and development of instruments and ISDC. • In case a PROTON launcher will be used, Russia will be invited to nominate one scientist formally acting as a representative for Russia providing the PROTON launcher. • In case NASA provided ground station(s) will be used, USA will be invited to nominate one scientist formally acting as a representative for USA providing the ground station(s). I. Pagano

21. The WSO/UV Science Committee • Is it the WIC? • See WIC definition and duties in the attachment to the 1st WIC meeting minute: WSO/UV Distributed Multi-National Phase A study (V 1.0) (Sep 2001, author WW) • Is the WIC a Steering Committee? • WIC  Science Committee • Project PI, • Instruments PIs • National Representatives • Mission Scientists I. Pagano

22. may be this is a dream, and we are wise to be more realistic just accepting the collection of the national results! Personal view & proposal • A time sharing policy document must be accompanied by the definition of the actors (Science Committee, Time Allocation Committee) according to the standards and approved by the funding agencies. • The WIC has the duty • to produce the “Phase A integrated study” (as in the WSO/UV Distributed Multi-National Phase A study (V 1.0)) • To maintain the official documentation! I. Pagano