=============================================================================== Questionnaire designed by the ESO Users Committee transnationally (with some rewording and own website for the UK version). It was advertised to the PPARC (CCLRC) astrocommunity mailinglist and again to the 89 PIs of ESO proposals in ESO periods 77 and 78 (April 2006 - March 2007). A total of 30 responses were received. The deadline is 16 March (although late responses will be accepted). I have collated the preliminary results, but reduced (selected and sometimes summarised) the submitted comments to those issues that seem more relevant for discussion within the UK 8m users group. Anonymity has been preserved. Full reports will be prepared at a later time. =============================================================================== How often do you observe with ESO telescopes and instruments? very often (each period) 15 often (every 2-4 periods) 11 occasionally 2 I am a potential future user (due to new instruments and/or telescopes) 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLL 2007 PART 1: GENERAL OPERATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - How do you rank the general information offered by ESO? Web Messenger Press releases Electronic Newsletter Excellent 8 7 2 Good 14 16 14 8 Acceptable 7 1 6 8 Insufficient 1 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 - PROPOSAL PREPARATION, SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION a - The resources in the Call for Proposals are complete 27 partly complete incomplete useless b - The documentation in the manuals is excellent 10 sufficient 16 incomplete 2 lousy c - The documentation provided on the ESO WEB is excellent 10 sufficient 14 incomplete 3 lousy d- Did you experience any problem with the proposal submission and WEB letters (e.g. notification)? No 27 Yes 1 e - How do you evaluate the work of the OPC and the comments you receive from the panels? excellent 4 acceptable 15 incomplete 7 very bad 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 - VISITOR MODE OBSERVATIONS a - How was the introduction at the telescope and assistance during the observations? excellent 17 sufficient 6 incomplete 1 lousy b - Did you receive a complete data set (incl. calibration data) and were the data delivered timely? Yes 25 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 - SERVICE MODE OBSERVATIONS a - Did you have sufficient time to prepare your Phase II? Yes 22 No 1 b - Could you monitor your service mode observations adequately? Yes 14 No 9 c - Did you receive a complete data set within your specifications (incl. calibration data) and were the data delivered timely? Yes 15 No 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLL 2007 PART 2: INSTRUMENT PIPELINES AND DATA PROCESSING DEVELOPMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 - How do you judge the current ESO instrument pipelines? Excellent Good Adequate Poor CRIRES FLAMES/UVES 4 2 1 FLAMES/ARGUS 1 FLAMES/MEDUSA 1 FORS2 2 1 3 2 ISAAC 2 3 MIDI NACO 1 1 SINFONI VIMOS 1 VISIR VLTI 7 - Has any of your science goals ever been hampered by the lack of an adequate pipeline although a suitable instrument exists? No 11 Yes 4 8 - How do you grade the documentation on the existing pipelines? Excellent 1 Good 5 Adequate 11 Poor 9 - Are the different reduction/analysis parameters easy to understand and control? No 5 Yes 7 10 - Have you found it necessary to develop your own data reduction process that has the same functionality as an already existing pipeline? No 5 Yes 11 If yes, has this been widely distributed (e.g. by publishing the method in a journal)? No 8 Yes 3 11 - Are you aware of the SAMPO project? No 20 Yes 3 =============================================================================== A few typical comments with regard to the resources in the call for proposals, manuals and web documentation: "In comparison with similar competing facilities such as Gemini, the ESO instrument manuals are incredibly useful and comprehensive. Gemini/ING could use such a resource for each instrument (a single fixed document), instead of the web pages that are somewhat difficult to navigate and keep track of." "It would be helpful to have "quick-guides" summarising the details of an instrument needed for proposing (rather than having to wade through the whole user manual)." "Sometimes I find the information on the web disorganised and it's sometimes easier to do a google search for something you want, rather than starting from the ESO front page. This is particularly true to finding the ETC for a particular instrument etc." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments with regard to the proposal preparation, submission and evaluation (this understandably generated the most, and strongest reactions): The feedback and ranking seem at odds with each other, and can sometimes depend strongly on the panel in place at the time. Feedback on failed proposals is especially appreciated but seldomly satisfactory - specifically it often lacks suggestions for improvement, and is often too defensive. One respondent remarked: "Feedback often contradictory and generally of poor quality, but no worse than Gemini/ING etc." Suggestions were made that ESO should make use of external referees (one respondent was worried about the due care given to the proposals, raising the threshold for applying to ESO). Also, one respondent suggested that PIs be contacted for clarification before the OPC meeting, if this would help the OPC make an informed decision. "We still need a list of the TAC members (after the TAC has sat) AND a full list of the accepted proposals, their titles, time allocated (and band), instruments used and the nationality of the PI. if ESO are unwilling to do this for everyone then the UK ought to publish the relevant data for our accepted programs and TAC members." One respondent complained about the standard 1hr limit on OBs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments with regard to visitor mode observations: It would be nice if calibration measurements were performed in advance of the observations, instead of the following day, so that the pipeline run at the time of observation could produce final results. Alternatively, reprocessed data using the up-to-date calibrations could be stored on the data media that are supplied. Visitor support at La Silla may have improved over the past few years (support astronomers were not always familiar with the instrument). In general, the support astronomers are commended on the quality and generosity of their help. Some individual comments: "Very different from Gemini. On the VLT you are allowed to do very little personally, whereas you have much more responsibility and control at Gemini. Having used both, for a competent observer, there is not much difference. Perhaps on the first night you are a bit more efficient on the VLT, but there is not much in it. Of course, with an incompetent observer........." "The requirement for 2 night stays at paranal and another in santiago on the way in/out is excessive in this day and age - people should be required to appear at paranal a night early - but no other restrictions should be made." "I found that time lost to technical difficulties was NOT repayed in any way to the user. Thus, if one loses 10-20% of ones of observations due to ESO's own technical problems, one simply has to live with it when in visitor mode." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments about the Phase II preparation: The rules with regard to the Phase II preparation are (too) strict, e.g., with regard to the format of the finder charts, the maximum of 1hr per OB (which would induce extra overhead if longer exposures need to be accumulated), it is not possible to concatenate different objects' observations within one unit. There were also suggestions to allow overfilling the queue, so that targets could be available throughout the semester. One respondent remarked: "So long as the user makes contact with their ESO support staff member then it seems fine. Requestes are handled sensibly, especially waiver requests. The key is to make contact with them if anything is non-standard. Without this relationship, its not surprising if some astronomers feel they are treated "mechanically" by the phase 2 process." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestions for improvement in the service mode observations: Just one respondent's remark which was echoed by many others: "At the moment Gemini sends an email within about 3 days of an observation and the data including calibrations are ready within 3 days. ESO should aim to do the same. This may require better internet rates between Paranal and Europe." Calibration data are not always of adequate quality; the same is sometimes true for pipeline-reduced data products. More information about the observing conditions (weather as well as technical) directly from the observer would be appreciated by some. One respondent noted a marked improvement on the data delivery, in the sense that: "The organisation of the data sent to the PI is so much better than than it was just a year ago. The new way that the data is put into directories/folders makes it so much easier to navigate around and find the data that you need." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some specific questions to be addressed at the ESO Users Committee meeting (apart from the above): "Could ESO set an example by generating power in an environmentally-friendly way - e.g., solar? (and run electric cars, et cetera)" "The ESO HARPS instrument is a semi-private instrument for Mayor et al. because ESO HARPS oversight committee recommendations regarding an Iodine cell have not yet been implemented." "Would like to see more funds available for travel for astronomers would have very recently moved out of ESO member nation (i.e. long after proposal submission, but shortly before observing run) and who have not been in new country long enough to win own funding." "Z-band calibration: The staff at the telescope need to be more aware of the lack of published z-band calibrators in any one field. In particular, there are often no secondary calibrators in any standard field for z, so [..] (1) Don't saturate the standard and (2) investigate setting up secondary z-band calibrators in the fields around some of the known calibrators." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Experience with ESO pipelines: "It is not always easy to make the pipeline find all calibration files - and use them to calibrate the data." "I have only used FORS and I reduced the data with IRAF. Pipelines are very important but I did not use the ESO one." "When I first observed with ESO, using TIMMI2, there was no pipeline. I wrote my own at the telescope. When I started observing with VISIR the pipeline was not finished, and I modified my custom TIMMI2 pipeline to do the job. Thus I don't have experience with the ESO pipelines. I am about to observe with MIDI. Data reduction software (MIA-EWS) looks easy to use, and I will be using this pipeline." "As ever, when very faint objects are to be spectroscopically observed with FORS2 and the preimaging needs therefore to be deep and photometric, the pipeline reduced preimaging is useless for this, the observers need fast access to the raw data & calibs." "Had problems with the ISAAC pipeline in shift and adding data in JHK imaging ie. the shifting was not done properly, probably due to the fact that the objects were faint. I am not an IR expert which may be part of the problem I admit!, but that said I did not find the ISAAC part of the esorex very configurable, it either works or it doesn't. [..] In comparison, the GEMINI NIRI IRAF reduction package lets you choose on how you want to get the programme to find the shifts e.g. by picking a star yourself. In the end I gave up and will try again using the old (??) eclipse package pointed to by http://www.eso.org/observing/dfo/quality/ISAAC/pipeline/recipe_reduc.html - page maybe not up to date, e.g. one link to SW data reduction guide is broken" "I have used the FEROS and UVES pipelines recently and they are great. FEROS does not seem to exist in the above list but I found it relatively easy to install and use." "Accurate flux extraction and wavelength calibration for UVES. Extraction of mutltiple sources on the echelle slit. Extraction of non-point sources on the echelle slit." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are your expectations from SAMPO? "I won't hold my breath." ===============================================================================