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:Options:1)1) Start Spring 2007, release early-mid 2009Start Spring 2007, release early-mid 20092)2) Defer next survey by 1 or more yearsDefer next survey by 1 or more years

(2) Timing of subsequent surveys

• Should surveys be more frequent? – Document to be tweaked and adjustedor– 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:Options:1)1) Use traditional boundaries Use traditional boundaries 2)2) Embrace new areas of research (determine how?)Embrace new areas of research (determine how?)3)3) Use community input (AAS poll?) to set boundariesUse community input (AAS poll?) to set boundaries

(4) Panel Structure

• Previously, panels organized by wavelength• New issue: need to put science first• Options:Options:

1)1) Use traditional wavelength/technique-based panelsUse traditional wavelength/technique-based panels2)2) Organize panels by scientific question (e.g. dark Organize panels by scientific question (e.g. dark

energy, extrasolar planets, black holes)energy, extrasolar planets, black holes)3)3) Use matrixed panel structure, with panelists serving Use matrixed panel structure, with panelists serving

on both technique- and science-based panelson both technique- and science-based panels4)4) Do survey in two phases: Do survey in two phases:

i.i. Science-based first phase, with panels organized by Science-based first phase, with panels organized by science, to articulate the key science questions, and science, to articulate the key science questions, and

ii.ii. Technique-based second phase, to identify and prioritize Technique-based second phase, to identify and prioritize missions/projectsmissions/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:Options:1)1) Committee only astronomers/astrophysicists.Committee only astronomers/astrophysicists.2)2) Committee chaired (or co-chaired) by “outsider” Committee chaired (or co-chaired) by “outsider”

and/or include outsiders as members (#?)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:Options:

1)1) Solicit input in advance of survey (current CAA plan)Solicit input in advance of survey (current CAA plan)2)2) Traditional approach: discussions at AAS+ meetingsTraditional approach: discussions at AAS+ meetings3)3) Add regional Town MeetingsAdd regional Town Meetings4)4) 2-phase report, with feedback on Phase 1 by 2-phase report, with feedback on Phase 1 by

communitycommunity

(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: Options: 1)1) Committee/panels include foreign membersCommittee/panels include foreign members2)2) Committee appoints Committee appoints ex officioex officio foreign members foreign members3)3) Committee receives briefings from foreign officialsCommittee 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:Options:

1)1) Priority list in cost bins (as before)Priority list in cost bins (as before)2)2) Priorities by cost bin, plus explicit guidance re balancePriorities by cost bin, plus explicit guidance re balance3)3) Single prioritized listSingle prioritized list4)4) Priorities for science questions, cross-referenced to Priorities for science questions, cross-referenced to

mission list (annotated by which questions, how well)mission list (annotated by which questions, how well)5)5) Priority tree, with contingencies (dep. on budget, cost)Priority tree, with contingencies (dep. on budget, cost)6)6) ……

(9) Useful cost estimates

• Currently, projects have incentive to low-ball• Obviates planning • Projects in vastly different stages, so

robustness of costing varies• OptionsOptions

1)1) Rely on projects to provide costing (as now)Rely on projects to provide costing (as now)2)2) Committee includes experts in project management Committee includes experts in project management

and cost estimationand cost estimation3)3) Contract an independent entity to provide more Contract an independent entity to provide more

realistic cost estimatesrealistic cost estimates4)4) Abandon attempts to estimate costAbandon attempts to estimate cost5)5) Use incentives/rules, e.g., if project increases by Use incentives/rules, e.g., if project increases by

factor of >2.5, priorities are mootfactor 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:Options:

1)1) Validate previous rankingsValidate previous rankings2)2) Validate projects under construction (Phase C/D); Validate projects under construction (Phase C/D);

reconsider others in light of science/tech advancesreconsider others in light of science/tech advances3)3) Reconsider projects w only technology developmentReconsider projects w only technology development4)4) Consider all projects anewConsider all projects anew

(11) Flexible recommendations

• Options:Options:1)1) More flexibility More flexibility alternatives w decision points2)2) Offer alternatives for range of budget futuresOffer alternatives for range of budget futures3)3) Give example “waterfall” (budget) chartsGive example “waterfall” (budget) charts4)4) Address project phasing, complementarityAddress project phasing, complementarity5)5) Discuss role of private telescopes Discuss role of private telescopes 6)6) Explicitly specify mix of project sizesExplicitly specify mix of project sizes7)7) Role for core group in advisory capacity Role for core group in advisory capacity

throughout decadethroughout 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 Questions1. What is dark matter?2. What is dark energy?3. How did the universe

begin?4. Was Einstein right

about gravity?5. How have neutrinos

shaped the universe?6. What are nature’s

most energetic particles?

7. Are protons unstable?8. What are the new

states of matter?9. Are there more space-

time dimensions?10. How were elements

from Fe to Uranium made?

11. Is new theory of light and matter needed?