A Brief History of the Astrophysical Research Consortium and the Apache Point Observatory

Journal ofAstronomical Hisfotyand Heritage, 9(1), XX·XX (2006). A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ASTROPHYSICAL RESEARCH CONSORTIUM AND THE APACHE POINT OBSERVATORY J fm Peterson 8200 Fairway Dr. NE, Seattle, Washington 98115, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Glen Mackie Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This history of the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) and the Apache Point Observatory (APO) describes why and how the ARC-was formed, !he vision for the APO, and the technology used to Implement that vision. In particular, It examines the building of a low cost, lightweight, f/1.75, 3.5 meter telescope with an experimental mirror cast al the Stewart Observatory Mirror Lab, and key .features of remote observing, rapid instrument change and flexible scheduling. The organizational challenge of unifying distinct Institutions and their astronomy programs, and the difficulty of gathering funds for this venture, are also explored. Key scientific results and achievements using the APO are noted. This paper Is based on Interviews with key personnel, documents in the ARC business files, and published papers and reports (Including astronomy department annual reports). Ke�words: history, astronomy, Apache Point Observatory, remote observing, spincast mirror 1 INTRODUCTION ually could fund or fully utilize it (Wallerstein, 2004), New Mexico State University, Princeton University, Like most human endeavor, astronomy depends on the University of Chicago, the University of Washing bigger and better tools to break through the frontiers of ton, and Washington State University formed the discovery and ensure the advancement of our know Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) in 1984 in ledge. By the 1950's in the United States the biggest order to create an observatol)' that would provide and best astronomy tools were concentrated in a hand· telescope time to each member university based on its ful of universities, guaranteeing the astronomers investment {ARC Agreement, 1984). Figure I shows associated with them the best opportunities for new the Apache Point Observatory, which was ultimately discoveries. Although there were a number of fine built by the consortium. The cost of the biggest and observatories supporting excellent astronomy pro best astronomical instrumentation has grown so much grams, it was hard to compete with the Hale 200-inch that today almost every new telescope project is a telescope at the California Institute of Technology' s · cooperative effort. Modest ones require a small group Palomar Observatory and the 100-inch Hooker Tele of institutions like ARC, while wnbitious ones might scope at the Carnegie Institute of Washington's MI. require the cooperation of nations. Today's models of Wilson Observatory or even the University of Cali cooperation rely on the pioneering steps by groups 1 ike fornia's 3-meter reflector at the Lick Observatory, the ARC, where each institution's individual needs, which began operation in 1960. The size of their drewns, and ambitions have been accommodated and departments and their ability to raise private funds unified into a single vision. How they came together, ensured their continued leadership in the ever more how they worked together, and what they created expensive world of bigger and better telescopes (Me· · provide insights into the science and technology of Cray, 2004). astronomy today, the business of astronomy today, and With National Science Foundation (NSF) support the human effortr equired to implement a vision. and encouragement, a number of institutions in the United States fonned the Association of Universities 2 THE LONG PATH TO AN OBSERVATORY for Research in Astronomy (AURA) on 28 October Prior to the formation of the ARC in 1984 none of the 1957 to create and manage . a national US optical consortium members had telescopes with apertures observatol)' available to all US scientists based on the exceeding 1.0-meter, and their observatol)' locations scientific merits of their proposals (Edmondson, 1997). were not ideal. ln general, a common desire to gain Government funding made excellent telescopes avail access to a larger telescope in a better site brought able to astronomers with good research ideas, who these universities together, but it was a long and would not otherwise have access to the equipment bumpy road even to get started. Since the astronomers needed. Although serving an important need, the at the Uni\'ersity of Washington initiated the process, AURA national observatories do not adequately starting with their story provides the best illustration of support the needs of a university astronomy depart· how this group was eventually fomted. menl to implement long-term observing programs (York, 2004) that strengthen the department by attract· 2.1 University of Washington (UW) ing top faculty, graduate students, .and post-docs. In 1965 the UW decided to expand its Astronomy Desirous of a first·class observatory for long-term Department and hired Paul Hodge and George programs, yet recognizing that none of them individ- Wallerstein (both from the University of California at Jim Peterson and Glenn Mackie The ARC and the Apache Point Observatory Berkeley) to join Theodor Jacobsen, the sole UW ranked second in allocation of time among all US astronomer since 1928. As observers used to accessing institutions and ranked first in per-capita allocation. excellent telescopes, Hodge and Wallerstein soon be Although the U\V obtained a Jot of observing time, the gan to plan for an observatory and that first year they constraints were growing as the demand increased and hired Ed Mannel)' to help with site selection and NSF funding for Kitt Peak failed to keep pace. Three optical design. Three issues soon became apparent. quarters of all requests for time were denied, and Firstly, Washington State did not offer a suitable site programs like the one at the UW were in a difficult for an outstanding observatOI)'. Secondly, funding for position as the growing team of astronomers and the telescope required a larger resource base, espec graduate students at the University realized that they ially since State funds would be hard to get for an out no longer rely on gaining access to NOAO facilities of-State project. Finally, they needed a partnership (Balick, 1981 ). They needed their own large telescope. with other astronomy departments because their small, In 197 5 Mr Alex Kane died and left an estate worth but growing faculty would underutilize and have 1 $250,000 for the purpose of building a telescope, so difficulty funding and operating a large facility the UW finally had startup funds for a major telescope {Wallerstein, 2004). project. Kane, from Ashland, Oregon, had first offered As early as October 1965 the UW Regents author the money to Oregon State University, but they told ized construction of a large telescope using external him they were not interested; the U\V did not make the (versus State) funds. Although Professors Wallerstein same mistake. But even with secure funding, finding a and Hodge entered into discussions with many poten partner was not easy. The UW talked with Stanford tial partners in the following ten years, including the University about locating a telescope on Mauna Kea in Jet Propulsion Lab and the University of Wisconsin at Hawaii, but Stanford could not justif)' the project Madison, private funding at UW and the other instit without hiring four additional faculty members, so they utions had not been secured and Federal funding from dropped out of the discussion. Another possibility was the NSF was channeled to other projects, like the acquiring a 40-inch telescope from the University of National ObservatOI)' at Kitt Peak (ibid.). Jn the Vienna and partnering with them to build an observ meantime, in 1971 the U\V built a small observatOI)' atory on Mauna Kea for it. In addition to the mediocre on Manastash Ridge in central Washington State that optics and awkward mount, the mirror was just too initially housed a 16-inch telescope, but was replaced a small (Wallerstein, 2004). The situation changed in year later with a 30-inch telescope (ibid.). Addition 1978-1979 when Professor Bruce Balick began explor ally, as the Department continued to grow, its many ing a partnership with Howard University, New Mex observers came to rely heavily on the National Optical ico State University (NMSU), and Washington State Astronomy ObservatOI)' facilities at Kitt Peak in University (WSU). Arizona and Cerro Tololo in Chile. By 1981, the U\V Figure 1 : The Apache Point Observatory in 2000, including from left to right the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) 2.5 meter, the SDSS 0.6 meter, the New Mexico State University 1.0 meter (hidden by a tree), and the ARC 3.5 meter telescopes (courtesy of ARC, photo by Dan long, 2000). Jim Peterson and Glenn Mackie The ARC and the Apache Point Observatory Balick had been presenting ideas for an advanced graduate student research programs they needed to technology telescope to groups around the country secure access to a 2+-meter class telescope. They that, through personal and professional contacts, he could no longer rely on national facilities to meet their heard might be interested in joining with the UW to needs. Although they origina11y planned on building build a telescope. The initial ideas for the new tele their own telescope and had actually been exploring scope came from the Kitt Peak Advanced Develop sites, the advantages of a partnership that brought more ment Program and from radio astronomy. Balick's resources and more personnel support convinced the background in radio astronomy led him to invite NMSU to join with the UW (Anderson, 2004). The Sebastian Von Hoerner and Wun Yuen Wong from the UW brought telescope-engineering expertise and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green NMSU had site management capability.

Load more