# Presentation: 246370

## Update from NRC Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics

- Meg Urry, CAA Co-Chair

## Background & Issues

- CAA is standing sub-committee of SSB & BPA
- BPA co-chair (CMU) and SSB co-chair (Chuck Bennett, replacing Roger Blandford)
- Overlapping roles of 3+ advisory committees
- CAA, AAAC, NAC/Astrophysics subcommittee, (MPSAC, HEPAP, ...)
**Planning for next decadal survey**
- NRC Assessment of NASA Science Plan

## Astronomy & Astrophysics Decadal Surveys

- Nature Article (Sep 28, 2006)
- 5 previous surveys, starting 1960s
- “Gold Standard” for science prioritization
- Most recent, Astronomy & Astrophysics in the New Millenium
- Co-chairs Chris McKee, Joe Taylor
- Considered projects in Large, Medium, Small categories
- Prioritization within Large and Medium, across space and ground (but separable)

## Progress of 2000 AANM

- Few recommendations will be done by 2010
- Greatly changed context
- Unanticipated fiscal constraints (economic downturn, rising budget deficit) – unrealistic budget assumptions
- (9/11, new national priorities)
- Cost growth/expense of major projects
- NASA: Columbia accident + New Exploration Vision
- NSF: Private/public cooperation needed (big projects)
- DOE: Greater involvement A&A
- New science (Dark Energy)
- Interface of physics & astronomy  Quarks to the COSMOS study (collective Decadal advice)

## AANM Recommendations

- JWST
- GSMT
- Con X
- EVLA
- LSST
- TPF Tech Dev
- SAFIR

- TSIP
- GLAST
- LISA
- ATST
- SKA Tech Dev
- Solar Dynam Obs
- Carma
- EXIST
- VERITAS
- ARISE
- FASR
- SPST

## Additional concerns/issues

- Poor presentation of science story (compare AANM with Q2C)
- Science priorities vs. mission priorities
- Long time scales, carry-over projects
- How to provide intra-decade advice
- Balance: no prioritization among small, medium, large (OMB)
- Field boundaries (solar, neutrinos, cosmic rays, planet,...)
- International aspect (collaboration or competition? planning, phasing, partner obligations, ...)
- Ground vs. space (make case for complementarity)
- Experiments vs. Observatories (open/closed cultures)
- Timing of next Decadal Survey

## Planning for Next Decadal Survey

- Many good ideas out there
- CAA discussed with groups (AAAC)
- Got input from agency people
- CAA preparing white paper to discuss with broader community
- Session at Seattle AAS meeting
- Other (APS, DPS, ...)
- Broader involvement *ab initio*

## (1) Timing of Next Decadal Survey

- Issues:
- Little will be completed by 2010
- NSF/NASA/DOE budgets oversubscribed
- Changed circumstances/science outlook
- New administration in January 2009
- Requires: 2 years+ (proposal,create committee, meet, write, review, publish)
- Options:
- Start Spring 2007, release early-mid 2009
- Defer next survey by 1 or more years

## (2) Timing of subsequent surveys

- Should surveys be more frequent?
- Document to be tweaked and adjusted
- or
- Monolithic answer to entire decade?
- Intra-decade maintenance?
- By standing committee (CAA role currently)
- By advisory committees (used to work well...)
- By survey committee (institutional memory)

## (3) Breadth and Boundaries of Field

- (Very) interesting science at interfaces between fields. Examples:
- Astrobiology
- SETI
- Neutrinos (astrophysics, physics)
- Planetary exploration (*in situ*, remote)
- Dark matter (direct, indirect searches)
- Solar physics/astronomy
- Gravity
- Options:
- Use traditional boundaries
- Embrace new areas of research (determine how?)
- Use community input (AAS poll?) to set boundaries

## (4) Panel Structure

- Previously, panels organized by wavelength
- New issue: *need to* *put science first*
- Options:
- Use traditional wavelength/technique-based panels
- Organize panels by scientific question (e.g. dark energy, extrasolar planets, black holes)
- Use matrixed panel structure, with panelists serving on both technique- and science-based panels
- Do survey in two phases:
- Science-based first phase, with panels organized by science, to articulate the key science questions, and
- Technique-based second phase, to identify and prioritize missions/projects

## (5) Panel membership

- New: Outsiders on survey committee (e.g., EPP2010)
- Cost/management experts
- Policy people (former officials)
- Scientists from other fields
- Leaders in industrial/technology companies
- International partners
- Options:
- Committee only astronomers/astrophysicists.
- Committee chaired (or co-chaired) by “outsider” and/or include outsiders as members (#?)

## (6) Engaging the Community

- Issues:
- Field is larger and more diverse than ever
- Some segments felt disenfranchised/excluded from 2000 survey (NSF Senior Review)
- Options:
- Solicit input in advance of survey (current CAA plan)
- Traditional approach: discussions at AAS+ meetings
- Add regional Town Meetings
- 2-phase report, with feedback on Phase 1 by community

## (7) International community

- Issues:
- Projects larger, more expensive
- Increasing activity in other nations
- The world is flat
- Europe leading in ground-based astronomy?
- Korea, South Africa, India, China, entering game
- Collaboration preferred over competition
- Options:
- Committee/panels include foreign members
- Committee appoints *ex officio* foreign members
- Committee receives briefings from foreign officials

## (8) Integration of priorities

- Previous surveys had priority lists divided by cost and ground *v.* space
- 2000 survey did integrate list wrt ground and space
- Balance/cross-prioritization needed (OMB)
- Options:
- Priority list in cost bins (as before)
- Priorities by cost bin, plus explicit guidance re balance
- Single prioritized list
- Priorities for science questions, cross-referenced to mission list (annotated by which questions, how well)
- Priority tree, with contingencies (dep. on budget, cost)
- ...

## (9) Useful cost estimates

- Currently, projects have incentive to low-ball
- Obviates planning
- Projects in vastly different stages, so robustness of costing varies
- Options
- Rely on projects to provide costing (as now)
- Committee includes experts in project management and cost estimation
- Contract an independent entity to provide more realistic cost estimates
- Abandon attempts to estimate cost
- Use incentives/rules, e.g., if project increases by factor of >2.5, priorities are moot

## (10) Recommendations of previous surveys

- Common for missions to take >1 decade
- E.g., ALMA and SIM both recommended in 1991
- Usually “blessed” in next survey
- Many AANM projects not started; if blessed, no free money in next decade
- Options:
- Validate previous rankings
- Validate projects under construction (Phase C/D); reconsider others in light of science/tech advances
- Reconsider projects w only technology development
- Consider all projects anew

## (11) Flexible recommendations

- Options:
- More flexibility *alternatives w decision points*
- Offer alternatives for range of budget futures
- Give example “waterfall” (budget) charts
- Address project phasing, complementarity
- Discuss role of private telescopes
- Explicitly specify mix of project sizes
- Role for core group in advisory capacity throughout decade

## (12) Earmarks

- Make clear decadal survey priorities are based on science
- Delete from priority list projects using political approach

## Summary of SSB Assessment of NASA Science Plan (astrophysics aspects only)

## Assessment of NASA SMD Science Plan (astrophysics issues)

- SSB study, Committee chaired by Tom Young
- Issued letter to Mary Cleave on September 15, 2006 (circulated)
- Comments:
- NASA has ignored SSB report (Winter 2005-6), *An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Program*
- SMD Science Plan overemphasizes mission-specific activities in comparison to mission-enabling things like R&A, technology development (and DSN)
- Cost growth in big missions is a major concern, which impacts executability of NASA Science Plan.  Has made it difficult to maintain program balance between large and small.
- Recommendations:
- Compare 2003 and 2006 Science Plans, note differences.
- Develop strategic plan for technology development for future missions
- Protect R&A.
- Plan for mission-enabling elements of program:
- Strategic approach to R&A (justify levels, etc.)
- Plan for computing/modeling needs, develop strategic plan.
- Cost growth:
- Improve mechanisms for cost estimation
- Review major missions currently in development
- Fix problems caused by recent cuts, disruptions to human capital and technology development pipeline.

## Backup Charts

## AANM Key Science Questions

- How did universe begin, how did it evolve from primordial soup of elementary particles into complex structures seen today, and what is its destiny?
- How do galaxies first arise and mature?
- How are stars born and how do they live and die?
- How do planets form and change as they age?
- Does life exist elsewhere in the universe?

## Q2C Key Science Questions

- What is dark matter?
- What is dark energy?
- How did the universe begin?
- Was Einstein right about gravity?
- How have neutrinos shaped the universe?
- What are nature’s most energetic particles?

- Are protons unstable?
- What are the new states of matter?
- Are there more space-time dimensions?
- How were elements from Fe to Uranium made?
- Is new theory of light and matter needed?