%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % UKIDSS PROPOSAL TEMPLATE % for responses to UKIRT Campaign Call Nov 3rd 2006 % % VERSION 7 : OCT 30TH % Andy will make a single submission on Friday. Please complete all changes by Thursday 4pm, and % upload to twiki (1) ps or pdf (2) TeX source (3) Figures. This will enable Andy/Steve to make % any last minute tidyings/consistency changes etc. (If we make any changes we will make sure % Survey Head knows % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % CHANGES : PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU USE LATEST COMMON SECTIONS % NOTE : Figure and Table captions : please \it or small font so that % these stand out from the text % - added `achievements' section : fairly short % - slight shortening of Introduction and Data Management % - some guidance on time estimates % - more compact form for references % - corrected et al to et al. (thanks Omar) % - removed \newpage before refs % - updated Dye et al (is published) % - Section 1.1: dcoumented -> documented % - Section 3: decsribed -> described % - Title : 'Chair' to `Head' % - font is Times 11pt : Omar's favourite % ... but this seems to make the \verbatim stuff spill over ?? % anybody know the solution to this ? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % SETUP : doc class, graphics, layout % note : use of `geometry' package guarantees % will appear properly on both Euro and US paper % % 1 The UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS)UKIDSS % 1.1 Introduction % 1.2 Achievements of UKIDSS % [~1 page] % % 2 The Galactic Plane Survey (GPS) % 2.1 Introduction : original science case % 2.2 Progress on the GPS survey % 2.3 Case for completion of GPS % 2.4 Comparison with other surveys % % 3 Technical case % 3.1 UKIDSS implementation % 3.2 Completion of GPS % % 4 Data Management % % 5 Collaborators and Institutions % % 6 References % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \documentclass[11pt]{article} \usepackage{graphicx, times} %\usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage[totalwidth=450pt,totalheight=650pt,a4paper]{geometry} \newcommand{\et}{\sl et al.\rm} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % TITLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \title{\vspace*{-3cm} Proposal to UKIRT Board \\ Completion of UKIDSS Galactic Clusters Survey (GCS)} \author{N.Hambly \\ University of Edinburgh, \\ Head of UKIDSS GCS Working Group} \date{Nov 3 2006} \pagestyle{myheadings} \markboth {UKIDSS GCS completion} {UKIDSS GCS completion} \thispagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \maketitle %\baselineskip 22pt \baselineskip 12pt \parindent 0pt \parskip 9pt %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % ABSTRACT % UKIRT guidance : <= 10 lines %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \begin{abstract} The UKIDSS Galactic Clusters Survey aims to measure the substellar mass function (MF) in ten young Galactic open clusters and star formation associations. We intend to determine, with good statistics, the form of this function down to between 10 and 40 Jupiter masses (depending on cluster age/distance) in a variety of Galactic environments. These observations will yield an accurate and uniform census of the present day MF as a function of local Galactic environment and age. Furthermore, the GCS will enable determination of the underlying initial MF in those environments, and will provide observational data to critically confront the latest models of the fundamental astrophysical formation process for substellar objects. \end{abstract} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % GENERAL UKIDSS DESCRIPTION % UKIRT guidance for overall science case : <= 8 pages including figures % this intro : 1 page % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \section{The UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS)} \label{UKIDSS} \subsection{Introduction} The UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) is the most significant step forward in infrared sky surveys since the Two Micron All Sky Survey Project (2MASS; Skrutskie \et\ 2006), and can be considered the near-infrared counterpart of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York \et\ 2000). It does not cover the whole sky, but is many times deeper than 2MASS. It is in fact not a single survey but a survey programme combining a set of five survey components of complementary combinations of depth and area. The Large Area Survey, the Galactic Cluster Survey, and the Galactic Plane Survey cover approximately 7000 square degrees to a depth of K$\sim$18; the Deep Extragalactic Survey covers 35 square degrees to K$\sim$21, and the Ultra Deep Survey covers 0.77 square degrees to K$\sim$23. The prime aim of UKIDSS is to provide a long term astronomical legacy database; the design is however driven by a series of specific goals -- for example to find the nearest and faintest sub-stellar objects; to break the z=7 quasar barrier; to determine the epoch of re-ionisation; to determine the substellar mass function; to discover Population II brown dwarfs, if they exist; to measure the growth of structure from z=3 to the present day; to determine the epoch of spheroid formation; and to map the Milky Way through the dust, to several kpc. The survey data are being uniformly processed and made available in a series of well documented staged releases. The data are immediately public to astronomers in all ESO member states, and available to the world after eighteen months. UKIDSS was proposed to the UKIRT Board in March 2001 as a seven year programme, using approximately one thousand nights of time with the UKIRT Wide Field Camera (WFCAM). The full programme was provisionally approved, with an initial two-year programme followed by an expected review of progress to confirm the full seven year programme. The UKIDSS progress review is being provided separately, while the proposal to complete the full programme is being considered as part of the UKIRT Survey Call. Following Board guidance, a separate completion proposal is being made for each of the component surveys within the UKIDSS programme (LAS, GPS, GCS, DXS, UDS). However, it is important to understand that UKIDSS is designed, planned, and implemented as a single interacting whole. UKIDSS is fully described in Lawrence \et\ (2006; astro-ph/0604426). The original science case is available on the UKIDSS project web pages at http://www.ukidss.org. \subsection{Achievements of UKIDSS} After many years of planning, UKIDSS is now a successful reality, thanks to close collaboration between UKIRT, VDFS, and the members of the UKIDSS consortium, who have designed and implemented observing strategy, organised the registration of archive users across Europe, and in collaboration with the VDFS team, carried out quality control filtering, produced stacked and merged survey products, and achieved two public data releases : the Early Data Release (EDR, January 2006), and the First Data Release (DR1, July 2006). The DR1 release contains 7\% of the likely final volume of UKIDSS, and is already bigger than 2MASS. The coverage to date is shown in Table 1. Four technical papers describing the survey, photometric system, and data release details have been published or are in press (Lawrence \et\ 2006, Hewett \et\ 2006, Dye \et\ 2006, Warren \et\ 2006) and four more papers are in preparation describing the camera, the pipeline, the archive, and the survey calibration (Casali \et , Irwin \et , Hambly \et , Hodgkin \et ). These data releases attracted considerable attention, in the media and amongst professional astronomers. Use of the data has been very impressive. Since EDR release there have been over 7000 queries from 40 different institutions exporting over one billion rows. Papers are already appearing. We are currently aware of 20 UKIDSS related papers either in press, on astro-ph, or in preparation. The ones we know about are from members of UKIDSS working groups, and so we imagine there are many more in preparation across Europe. These papers are based on the tiny volume of data in the EDR; many more will follow using DR1. These early papers, and unpublished work we are aware of, include some impressive results - a quasar at $z=5.86$; discovery of one of the coolest known T-dwarfs; discovery of 9 luminous Lyman-break galaxies at $z>5$; determination of the K-band luminosity function and its evolution to unprecedented accuracy in the range $0.50.5{\rm M}_{\odot}$; $\alpha=1.5$ for $0.5>m/{\rm M}_{\odot}>0.1$; and the plausible values $\alpha=+1,0,-1$ for $m<0.1{\rm M}_{\odot}$. For the log--normal, we assume a shape extrapolated from that measured in Hambly et al.~(1999b) and Moraux et al.~(2005). In each case, the MFs are normalised to give the total mass estimated for each cluster in Table~1. In order to be able to disentangle age/metallicity/environment effects and to quantify evolutionary effects as the IMF translates into the present--day MF, we feel that 10 targets is close to a minimum requirement. Assuming that these targets are representative of the birthplace of most Galactic disk stars, this study will yield information applicable to the Galactic disk as a whole. %Follow--up %observations may include studies of the binary fraction and searches for %eclipsing BDs that will confront theoretical models with real data. Photometric identification of candidates requires multi--colour measurements: various two--colour diagrams are needed to measure reddening and hence extinction before transformation of luminosity to mass; K photometry is useful for detecting very young sources via hot dust emission. Proper motion measurements are highly desirable to refine membership lists selected by photometry alone since some cluster non--members will inevitably contaminate regions of colour--magnitude and colour--colour diagrams where the cluster members are found. All the regions surveyed will be revisited in the K band for proper motion measurement over a 5~yr baseline. %(see Appendix~\ref{gcsapp2}) (second epoch observations will also enable detection of Young Stellar Objects from K--band variability). \begin{figure} \setlength{\unitlength}{1in} \begin{picture}(7.2,10.5) \special{psfile=tablerenew.eps angle=0 hoffset=-25 voffset=85 hscale=80 vscale=80} \end{picture} \end{figure} \subsection{Progress in the GCS survey} The GCS has progressed well in the first two years of UKIDSS. All high priority targets have been observed in ZYJHK, with lower priority targets being observed in K only to provide first epoch position measures for proper motions. For more details, see the technical case below. \subsection{Case for completion of the GCS} %- continuing valdity of general goals Needless to say, substellar MF research has progressed significantly in the years since the original proposal submission (Spring~2001). The current status of research is comprehensively illustrated in the proceedings of the recent conference on ultra--low mass star formation which took place in July~2005 (Mart\'{\i}n \& Magazz\`{u}~2005). Major advances are being made in a number of areas, including surveys in far--infrared and submillimeter wavelength ranges made possible by new technology (e.g.\ Greaves~2005; Kauffman et al.~2005); computer simulations, for example in both stellar/substellar/planet formation (e.g.\ Thies et al.~2005) and dynamical simulations of cluster evapouration (e.g.\ Goodwin et al.~2005); evolutionary models (e.g.\ Fortney et al.~2005) and atmospheric models (e.g.\ Reiners et al.~2005); and improvements in understanding of the underlying astrophysics of substellar objects and their formation (e.g.\ Pavlenko et al.~2005; Whitworth \& Goodwin~2005; Wuchterl~2005). A natural question to ask is: has the UKIDSS GCS programme been overtaken by other surveys in the interim? The answer is a resounding `no'! Cluster observations continue to be incremental in nature, as dictated by the simple fact that it is almost impossible to secure sufficient observing time on 4m--class facilities to execute a complete survey of a single target, let alone the set of targets required to ensure a uniform and unbiased study. Often, work is done in the optical on 2m--class telescopes with relatively low areal coverage, and large extrapolations are made which are severely hampered by statistical errors and are prone to systematic errors from a highly uncertain level of contamination. Typically, only two colours at a single epoch are used in the primary sample selection and no proper motion selection is possible. This results in reddening being impossible to correct for; Gonz\'{a}les--Garc\'{\i}a et al.~(2006) is an example of the work that continues to appear in the literature. Note that 2MASS lacks the depth to probe the lower mass substellar sequences of the nearby star clusters and star formation regions. %- future goals %- revised strategy At a meeting of the GCS Working Group in Cambridge, 9~July 2003, revision of the original GCS observational programme was discussed and agreed given new information concerning the likely excellent short wavelength performance of WFCAM and the advent of the UK joining ESO. The total time requirement was unaffected by this; the changes were made within the existing time as originally proposed. The main changes were as follows: \begin{itemize} \item A re-examination of the original target list in the light of the UK joining ESO resulted in the most northerly target (M39) being dropped in favour of an equatorial one (IC4665) to allow follow--up from Chile; \item The WG revised the filter coverage, trading off area covered in several of the larger targets for a wider wavelength baseline via inclusion of ZY in addition to JHK (this decision has proved to be a good one as demonstrated in the colour--magnitude diagram below). \end{itemize} For much more detail, see \verb+http://www.roe.ac.uk/~nch/gcs/new2yr/new2yr.html+ which is the UKIDSS GCS WG web page. %- detailed case, example science outcomes etc The expected scientific return from the GCS is illustrated in the first two refereed papers to be published from the survey (Lodieu et al.~2006a; 2006b). In particular, Lodieu et al.~(2006a) demonstrate \begin{itemize} \item the power of the GCS multicolour approach in selecting clean cluster membership samples; \item the quantifiable completeness and reliability of the survey; \item the promise of additional proper motion selection. \end{itemize} The first point is particularly important. As stated above, in other work very often optical selection in two colours is used with subsequent IR follow--up from pointed observations. In the low S/N substellar r\'{e}gime of such studies, the combination of higher reddening and photometric scatter makes it very difficult to quantify completeness since cuts on colour have tended to be tuned to yield samples that can be feasibly followed up. In the GCS, on the other hand, we can choose the primary colour--magnitude (CM) selection plane; Z versus Z--J produces excellent separation between the cluster substellar sequence and non--members for young star formation regions, e.g.~in Upper Sco (Figure~3 in Lodieu et al.~2006a) and Orion (Figure~\ref{sigori} in this proposal). Of course, this is not always the case especially for older targets in crowded regions, but the availability of five--colour photometry and proper motion selection allows us to weed out contaminating non--members, making appropriate allowance for photometric errors in colour. Note that even in Upper Sco, where a clear sequence is defined, we found that $\sim25$\% of sources initially selected in the Z, Z--J CM plane (Figure~3 in Lodieu et al.~2006a) turned out to be non--members and this can dramatically affect the slope of the derived MF. Moreover binarity, which is often neglected in small scale experiments, can be studied in different magnitude ranges by use of that CM plane where the locus of the sequence of members is the shallowest. \begin{figure} \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm} \begin{picture}(160,90) \centerline{\special{psfile=orion.eps angle=0 hoffset=-110 voffset=-15 hscale=40 vscale=40}} \end{picture} \caption{\em Z versus Z--J coloour--magnitude diagram for the Orion star formation central region ($\sigma$--Orionis) in the UKIDSS DR1+ database (Warren et al.~2006). A clear substellar sequence, extending to $m\sim10$M$_{\rm JUP}$ sits above the the general field population.} \label{sigori} \end{figure} Hence, we assert with some confidence that the GCS programme as instigated in the first two years of UKIDSS will achieve the desired aim of a uniform census of the substellar present day MF in a variety of Galactic environments, providing data to enable analysis of the underlying initial MF via accurate quantification of the effects of completeness, binarity, reddening etc.\ to provide an unparalleled dataset with which to critically confront state--of--the--art models of formation and evolution of brown dwarfs. \subsection{Comparison with other surveys} %- complementary proposals and how groovy it will all be %- competing proposals and why this one is better Moraux, Bouvier \& Clarke~(2005) present a study that is perhaps the closest to the UKIDSS GCS in terms of scope. However, the age range of the (smaller) list of targets is limited and the mass range covers only the highest mass brown dwarfs. Photometric identification of candidates primarily comes from optical (RIZ) photometry with very low signal--to--noise in the substellar r\'{e}gime and both completeness and contamination in this important mass range is a significant concern. Because the MF is based on applying a steep mass--luminosity relationship to counts of cluster candidates (i.e.~the luminosity function), the MF so derived is extremely sensitive to the level of completeness and contamination at the faint end. It is only via a large scale, homogeneous, multi--colour, multi--epoch infrared survey that such concerns can be addressed accurately, and this is precisely what the UKIDSS GCS has set out to achieve. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % TECHNICAL CASE % UKIRT guidance : 1 page % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \section{TECHNICAL CASE} \label{TechCase} \subsection{UKIDSS implementation} The general principles of UKIDSS implementation are described in Lawrence \et\ (2006), and details relevant to each release are specified in Dye \et\ (2006) and Warren \et\ (2006). UKIDSS operates within the context of a working observatory (UKIRT) and dataflow system (VDFS), with the consortium taking quite specific roles. Survey design (fields, areas, filters, depths, and time required) is debated across the whole consortium in order to allow compromises between survey components. The overall survey design is summarised in Table 1 of Lawrence \et\ (2006) and at http://www.ukidss.org. Implementation (exposures, microstepping, jittering, seeing requirements, sky requirements) varies between survey components, and is the responsibility of working group heads, who enter MSBs in a database for queued action. (The specific implementation for GCS is described below). However, there is a standard unit of 40 second exposures, which is the best compromise between observing efficiency and survey rate, as described in Lawrence \et\. The calibration plan has a dedicated working group. Calibration is based on 2MASS stars, tied to UKIRT faint standards. Observing is staffed in a series of short runs, by a significant fraction of the consortium. Quality Control filtering, and assistance to VDFS with production of merged and stacked survey products, is undertaken by a relatively small number of core working group members. From pipeline output over a year of data we now have an accurate assessment of actual achieved sensitivity, and it is close to the target depth. At 5$\sigma$, for point sources, using a 2" aperture magnitude, the standard 40second exposures give Y=20.2, J=19.6, H=18.8, and K=18.2. However, the rate of progress (sq.deg. surveyed per night) has been considerably less than hoped. On average across all the surveys, the rate of progress has been 79\% of that estimated in the proposal, and summarised in Table 1 of Lawrence \et\. In addition, the QC process has rejected 20\% of collected data. Most of the reasons behind both the lower efficiency and rejection rate are well understood and to a considerable extent have already been improved or corrected (e.g.\ faster PCs for data acquisition, avoidance of moon ghosts). We estimate that from here on efficiency will be 90\% of the original estimate, and QC will reject 10\% of data. As a result, to estimate nights needed for survey completion, we use the original models, but multiply by 1/0.8. The number of years needed depends of course on the amount of WFCAM-UKIDSS time available per year, which currently is roughly half of all UKIRT nights. This is a matter for Board decision, but we note here that we have entered into negotiation with the University of Hawaii, which could potentially increase the number of UKIDSS nights per year by 20\%. \subsection{Completion of GCS} %- keep this short ; state that design is as in Lawrence et al but with following variation.. %- short few words about dithering, microstepping etc %- estimated nights required : do this in simple minded way ..don't start afresh.. %(1) start with nights needed as quoted in Lawrence et al (2) Multiply by 1/0.8 for difference between expected efficiency and real efficiency (3) Scale according to any agreed changes in area, depth (4) quote REVISED TOTAL NIGHTS (5) estimate fraction done up to end of 2yr plan (May 2007) (6) quote NUMBER OF NIGHTS FOR COMPLETION. This proposal seeks time to complete the GCS programme as originally proposed, but with the (small) modifications discussed previously, given the continuing validity of the science case as demonstrated above. We request observing time to complete ZYJHK imaging with second epoch coverage in the~K band as detailed in Table~\ref{request}. Exposure times total 40s in all filters, comprising 20s$\times$2 dithers in ZY, 10s$\times$4 dithers in JH and 5s$\times$2 dithers$\times2\times2$ microsteps in K for optimal relative astrometry. %Completion of the observational programme, %as originally stated, is vital to provide good statistics in the %lowest mass bins of the MFs in the range of targets in order to %be able to make statistically meaningful statements as to the %universality (or otherwise) of the substellar IMF. \setcounter{table}{2} \begin{table}[h!] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{crrr} \hline Target & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Fractional completion} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Revised total nights} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Nights required to complete} \\ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{anticipated (2yr)} & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{ }\\ IC~4665 & 83\% & 0.27 & 0.046 \\ Pleiades & 83\% & 6.80 & 1.156 \\ Alpha Per & 83\% & 4.35 & 0.740 \\ Praesepe & 83\% & 2.45 & 0.417 \\ Taurus--Auriga & 9\% & 18.88 & 17.181 \\ Orion & 8\% & 13.32 & 12.254 \\ Upper Sco & 12\% & 13.32 & 11.722 \\ Perseus OB2 & 83\% & 1.09 & 0.185 \\ Hyades & 17\% & 25.15 & 20.875 \\ Coma Ber & 12\% & 6.80 & 5.984 \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{ }\\ & TOTALS: & 92.43 & 70.560 \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{ }\\ \hline %\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^1$assuming total observing efficiency 0.8 (taking into %account DQC losses of 0.1)} \end{tabular} \caption{\em Observing time request for completion of the UKIDSS GCS to the full programme, in priority order. Fractional completeness is as anticipated at the end of the 2 years; revised totals assume efficiency 0.8 with respect to figures in Lawrence et al.~(2006).} \label{request} \end{center} \end{table} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % DATA MANAGEMENT % UKIRT guidance : 1 page % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \section{DATA MANAGEMENT} \label{DataMgt} Data Management for UKIDSS employs the VISTA Data Flow System (VDFS). Data frames are transported to the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit (CASU) where they are processed using the VDFS pipeline. Processed frames and per-frame catalogues are sent over the internet to the Edinburgh Wide Field Astronomy Unit (WFAU) where they are ingested into the WFCAM Science Archive (WSA). The final stages needed to produce UKIDSS survey products - Quality Control (QC) filtering, stacking, mosaicing, and band-merging - are the joint responsibility of UKIDSS members and VDFS project staff. Although implementation is shared, the UKIDSS consortium has prime responsibility for design of the QC processes and algorithms. UKIDSS and the VDFS projects have had an intimate relationship throughout their histories; several members of the VDFS project are also UKIDSS members, and the UKIDSS consortium was used, through the `twenty questions' method to produce the Science Requirements Analysis Document for VDFS. Most of the structure of both the pipeline and the science archive was designed explicitly with UKIDSS in mind. Our aim is to release UKIDSS data products in a staged manner, roughly every six months. Again, this is done in a carefully agreed collaborative procedure with the VDFS project. To date, we have made two releases - the `Early Data Release (EDR)' on Feb 10th 2006, and `Data Release 1 (DR1)' on July 21st 2006. Each was accompanied by a `data release paper' specifying in detail the technical parameters of the dataset released (Dye \et\ 2006; Warren \et\ 2006; available on astro-ph and at http://surveys.roe.ac.uk/wsa/pubs.html . %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % COLLABORATORS and INSTITUTIONS % UKIRT guidance : 1 page % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \section{COLLABORATORS and INSTITUTIONS} \label{Collabs} This proposal is submitted by the {\em UKIDSS Consortium}. This is a consortium of over 100 individual astronomers across Europe, whose purpose is to implement the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey, in collaboration with the Joint Astronomy Centre (who operate WFCAM on UKIRT), and the VISTA Data Flow System project, who produce the WFCAM Science Archive. The aim of the UKIDSS consortium is to produce the scientific design for the survey; to win the telescope time necessary; to plan the implementation of the survey, liaising with the other bodies above; to staff the observing implementation; to define the necessary Quality Control (QC) filtering stages to produce final survey products; to assist the data processing team as necessary in producing stacked and merged survey products; and finally to document the production of the survey data in scientific publications and other technical papers. The consortium holds no proprietary data rights, and is open to any European astronomer to join. The current membership is listed at http://www.ukidss.org/consortium/consortium.html UKIDSS is operated through a set of working groups, whose Heads constitute an informal executive body in frequent contact. The key figures within the consortium are currently : \footnotesize \begin{verbatim} Consortium Principal Investigator (CPI) Andy Lawrence Edinburgh Consortium Survey Scientist (CSS) Steve Warren Imperial College Head of Large Area Survey (LAS) Richard Jameson Leicester Head of Galactic Plane Survey (GPS) Phil Lucas Herts Head of Galactic Clusters Survey (GCS) Nigel Hambly Edinburgh Head of Deep Extragalactic Survey (DXS) Alastair Edge Durham Head of Ultra Deep Survey (UDS) Omar Almaini Nottingham Head of Pipeline and Archive Group Steve Warren Imperial College Head of Calibration Group Paul Hewett Cambridge Head of Implementation Group Steve Warren Imperial College \end{verbatim} \normalsize %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % example of figure % FIGURE : GENERAL GOALS : SURVEY DEPTH COMPARISON %\begin{figure} %\includegraphics[width=90mm,angle=0]{surveys.eps} %\caption{\it Illustration of the scope %of the five UKIDSS survey components, %and their sum, %by comparison with 2MASS. The comparison is made in terms of expected number of %photons and effective volume, for the K band, computed as described in the text} %\end{figure} % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %\newpage \section{REFERENCES} \label{refs} \noindent Adams F.C., Fatuzzo M., 1996, ApJ, 464, 256 \noindent Allen C.W., 1973, Astrophysical Quantities (Athlone Press: London) %\noindent Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A\&A, 337, 403 % %\noindent Bell, E.F., McIntosh, D.H., Katz, N., Weinberg, M.D. 2003 ApJS 149, 289 % \noindent Burrows A.~et al., %, Marley M., Hubbard W.B., Lunine J.I., Guillot T., Saumon D., Freedman R., Sudarsky D., Sharp C., 1997, ApJ, 491, 856 \noindent Cameron A.G.W., In: Protostars and Planets III, eds.\ E.H.\ Levy \& J.I.\ Lunine, (University of Arizona Press: Tucson), 47 \noindent Chabrier G., Baraffe I., Allard F., Hauschildt P., 2000, ApJ, 542, 464 \noindent Dye, S., Warren, S.J., Hambly, N.C., \et\ 2006 MNRAS, 372, 1227. (astro-ph/0603608) %EDR paper \noindent Fortney, J.J., Marley, M.S., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J.J., 2005, AN, 326, 920 \noindent Gonz\'{a}lez--Garc\'{\i}a, B.M., et al.~2006, A\&A, in press \noindent Goodwin, S.P., Hubber, D.A., Moraux, E., Whitworth, A.P., 2005, AN, 326, 1040 \noindent Greaves, J., 2005, AN, 326, 1044 \noindent Hambly N.C., Knox R.A., Hawkins M.R.S., 1999a, In: Identification of Dark Matter, eds.\ N.J.C.\ Spooner \& V.\ Kudryavtsev, (World Scientific: Singapore), 144 \noindent Hambly N.C., Hodgkin S.T., Cossburn M.R., Jameson R.F., 1999b, MNRAS, 303, 835 \noindent Irwin M.J., 1985, MNRAS, 214, 575 \noindent Jones B.F., Walker M.F., 1988, AJ, 95, 1755 \noindent Kauffmann, J.\ et al., 2005, AN, 326, 874 \noindent King I.R., 1983, PASP, 95, 163 \noindent Lawrence, A., Warren, S.J., Almaini, O., \et\ 2006 MNRAS submitted (astro-ph/0604426) \noindent Levy E.H., Lunine J.I., 1993, Protostars and Planets III, (University of Arizona Press: Tucson) \noindent Liebert J.~et al., %, Reid I.N., Kirkpatrick J.D., Burrows A., Gizis J.E., Burgasser A., Dahn C.C., Monet D.G., Cutri R., Beichman C., Skrutskie M., Lecture Notes in Physics vol.\ 537, eds.\ S.\ Cotsakis \& G.W.\ Gibbons (Springer: Berlin), 505 \noindent Lodieu, N., Hambly, N.C., Jameson, R.F., Hodgkin, S.T., Carraro, G., Kendall, T.R., 2006a, MNRAS, in press (astro--ph/0610140) \noindent Lodieu, N., Hambly, N.C., Jameson, R.F., 2006, MNRAS, 2006b, in press (astro--ph/0609532) \noindent Lucas P.W., Roche P.F., 2000, MNRAS, 314, 858 \noindent Mannings V., Boss A.P., Russell S.S., 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, (University of Arizona Press: Tucson), in press \noindent Mart\'{\i}n E.L., Zapatero--Osorio M.R., Rebolo R. 1998, In: Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, eds.\ R.\ Rebolo, E.L.\ Mart\'{\i}n \& M.R.\ Zapatero--Osorio, ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ vol.\ 134, (ASP: San Francisco), 507 \noindent Mart\'{\i}n, E.L., Magazz\`{u}, A., 2005, AN, 326, 873 \noindent Miller G.E., Scalo J.M., 1979, ApJS, 41, 513 \noindent Moraux, E., Bouvier, J., Clarke, C., 2005, AN, 326, 985 \noindent Pavlenko, Y.V., 2005, AN, 326, 934 \noindent Rieners, A., 2005, AN, 326, 930 \noindent Robichon N., Arenou F., Turon C., Mermilliod J.C., 1999, A\&A, 345, 471 \noindent Salpeter E.E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 \noindent Shu F.H., Adams F.C., Lizano, S., 1987, ARAA, 25, 23 \noindent Skrutskie M.F., Cutri R.M., Stiening,\et\ 2006, AJ, 131, 1163. % 2MASS paper \noindent Thies I., Kroupa, P. Theis, C., 2005, AN, 326, 1048 \noindent Warren, S.J., Hambly, N.C., Dye, S., \et\ 2006 MNRAS submitted (astro-ph/0610191) %DR1 paper \noindent Whitworth, A.P., Goodwin, S.P., 2005, AN, 326, 899 \noindent Wuchterl, G., 2005, AN, 326, 905 \noindent York, D.G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J.E., \et\ 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 % SDSS paper \noindent Zapatero--Osorio M.R.~et al., %, B\'{e}jar V.J.S., Mart\'{\i}n E.L., Rebolo R., Barrado--y--Navascu\'{e}s D., Bailer--Jones C.A.L., Mundt R., 2000, Science, 290, 103 \noindent Zinnecker H., McCaughrean M.J., Wilking B.A., 1993, In: Protostars and Planets III, eds.\ E.H.\ Levy \& J.I.\ Lunine, (University of Arizona Press: Tucson), 429 \end{document}