EUROPEAN SOUTHERN OBSERVATORY

Re-Engineering Project: Common Control Room LSO-MIN-ESO-90000-2/v-1.1

Prepared	Olivier Hainaut	2002-01-22
Reviewed	Martin Kurster	2002-02-22
Released	Jorge Melnick	2002-

BACKGROUND

SUMMARY

1. A common control room has some clear disadvantages, most of them of technical nature. Many of these could/should be solved whether a common control room is implemented or not.
2. A common control room has some advantages, most of them of non-technical, "philosophical", un-quantified nature. The advantages are stronger for the astronomers ("more interaction", "more efficient support"), then for the night TIOs, while a control room will not change much or degrade the day operation.

1. At the beginning of the SciOp era, the telescopes will NOT be operated from a single common control room. Only the NTT will move to the new building, and will serve as a test bench for the semi-remote operation.
2. The new building should be built and installed having in mind a possible future joint operation of 2 or 3 of the main telescopes (plus automatic telescopes: at least DIMM, maybe SCIDAR, and possibly GRBs). The migration of 2p2 and 3p6 could take place in some undetermined future depending on the success of the NTT remote observations, of the evolution of needs, and of the evolution of the instrumentation of these telescopes. As an example, one could conceive to have HARPS operated from the new building, but the other 3p6 instruments still from the 3p6 building, and to have FEROS@2p2 from the new building but not WFI (these are just examples).
3. Unless a bright alternative project is submitted before Thu.2002-01-24, the construction will take place at the bottom of the NTT ramp. If another site appears, that has clear advantages over that site, a study (ground, mechanics, structure) will be requested, and the final decision will be taken based on that study.

OUTCOME OF THE BRAINSTORMING SESSIONS: 

"ADVANTAGES OF A COMMON CONTROL ROOM"

• Less space: although an additional 300m2 will be built, the 3p6 night operation would be done in a much smaller space (ie. about 1/3 of the total control room, i.e. roughly 50-70m2 instead of the current 150m2 at 3p6). For NTT operation, it is a clear increase, and for 2p2 it is about the same.
• Less privacy:
• Music/noise: having 3 sub-control rooms in a large open space will impose some behavioral restrictions (e.g. some German astronomer should not be allowed to sing loud opera, and French teams to fight in the control room). However, it must be noted that the acoustic of the new building can be designed to be intrinsically much better than, for instance, that of the PO control room, or Vitacura Satellite building.
• Telescope safety: in their current state, the telescopes (mostly 3p6, but also 2p2 and NTT to a certain extend) do not have enough reliable monitoring devices, and the operation relies on direct sight, noises, and analog signals. Safe operation from a remote control room is therefore not currently possible. It is however perceived that the improvement of the monitoring should take place anyway.
• Response time longer: in case of night time failure of equipment requiring direct intervention, few additional minutes will be lost. However, it must be noted that, while these failures are currently too common, in a good fraction of the occurrence another solution exist or should be implemented, or the cause of the problem should be tracked down and eliminated (an example is the failure of EFOSC's LCU: currently a software reboot is not sufficient, it needs to be hardware resetted: this should be fixed)
• Day operation: 
• Some advantages for some tasks (eg centralized backup) 
• No advantages for others (e.g. a lot of work still has to take place ON the telescope/instrument)
• "more efficient" There was quite a lot of discussion about this and what it means. The points that were on the white boards are:
• Great for simultaneous/coordinated observations
• Good to share and pass experience between team members
• Better for the astronomers: communications, exchanges...
• After the 2p2team members vanish, 3 telescopes will be run with the equivalent of 2 current teams.
• Clear separation between operation (i.e work at the telescope, either direct operation, support, etc) and off-line work (P2PP preparation, discussion of strategy, etc...) that does not need/should not take place where the operation is.
• "Astronomy community" the astronomers (Staff and Visitors) will have more exchanges than they have now.
• Windows: daylight and natural ventilation have been desired for a long time in the control rooms and telescope offices.

OUTCOME OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE LOCATION

1. Bottom of the NTT ramps, in front of the sarcophagus. This site is the only one which got a complete soil, structure and feasibility study (that were used in the budget preparation). Pros: technically ready, near the telescopes (i.e. closest possible for NTT and 3p6), faces downwind, close to the other telescopes (Swiss/SEST), too far from Hotel to get non-desired visits. Cons: too far from the hotel to walk, will maintain or increase the current traffic.
2. Below the 2p2, near where the first generation dorms used to be. Pros: on/near the backbone close to 2p2, fairly close to dorms 3/4 (permitting the VA to walk - although it is not clear they will want to walk with their lap-top, obs. documents, etc...). This location would in theory permit to close the upper part of the obs. to unauthorized traffic at night (how would we enforce this?). It is also less likely to be isolated in case of snow. Cons: no access road (has to be built $$$), no parking, faces up wind. Feasibility probable, but unclear.
3. Near the hotel, either next to it, or below it (library parking).  Pros: at the center of La Silla, walking distance from everything but the telescopes. Cons: the furthest from the telescopes; too close to la Silla center (we would get many visits), no view (library site), feasibility unclear (esp. network; that part of the net is by far the worse of LSO).