prepublication copy - The Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics ...

fluctuating level of funding for associated analysis and theory. Realizing the scientific potential of
existing facilities is of primary importance, but so is placing the broad range of results in appropriate
context, providing young scientists with opportunities to develop their potential, and enabling the creative
thinking that lays the foundations for the future.
As in most fields, the primary mechanisms for supporting research and training are competed
grants programs. NASA supports both general mission-enabling grants programs and those supporting
the specific science from operating satellites, such as the guest observer programs associated with Hubble,
Chandra, Spitzer and Fermi. NSF supports a general astronomy and astrophysics grants program as well
as more specialized programs such as the CAREER awards and the A&A Postdoctoral Fellow program.
DOE supports centrally administered grants programs, those administered through specific DOE
laboratories, and awards for young investigators.
In recent times, funding for these essential programs has flattened or even declined 3 at NASA
and NSF, especially when considered relative to the growth of the field. Notably, DOE funding for
astrophysics research increased from $34.4M/yr in 2004 to $45.2M/yr in 2008. Table 5-1 shows that the
oversubscription rate for NASA’s APRA grants program varied between 2.4:1 and 3.6:1 during the past
decade. NSF’s proposal success rate for AST grants has fallen over the past decade from a high of 37
percent in 2002 to a low of 23 percent in 2008, significantly lower than the more than 50 percent of the
early 1990s (Figure 5-1).
These data show that grant support for individual astronomers and astrophysicists has not grown
as fast over the past 15 years as the field. At the current proposal success rate of less than 1 in 5 for NSF’s
AAG program or some of the NASA R&A grants programs, even proposals rated “excellent” can not be
supported. There is a strong case for increasing the funding of these programs such that those proposals
deemed worthy of funding by review panels, program managers, and advisory groups can be supported.
Furthermore, the current situation is not a healthy position from which to carry out the more ambitious
recommendations of Astro2010 given the needs for technical resources and personnel training. The goal
is to achieve an appropriate balance between the optimal scientific exploitation of data obtained from the
missions and facilities funded by NASA and NSF, and the mission/facility support itself.
TABLE 5‐1 Astrophysics Division Sponsored Proposal Opportunities for 2007 SOURCE: NASA
Astrophysics Division
Program
Proposals
received
Proposals
selected
Oversubscription
rate
Astronomy & Physics R & A (APRA) 146 52 2.8 to 1
Hubble Space Telescope 821 189 4.3
Chandra X‐ray Observatory 663 177 3.7
Spitzer Space Telescope 720 258 2.8
XMM‐Newton 330 102 3.2
INTEGRAL 30 25 1.2
Kepler Participating Scientists 37 8 4.6
Origins of Solar Systems (with Plan. Sci. Div.) 104 27 3.9
Astrophys. Theory & Fundamental Phys. (ATP) 181 37 4.9
GALEX Guest Investigator – Cycle 4 99 35 2.8
Astrophysics Data Analysis (ADP) 98 41 2.3
Fermi Guest Investigator – Cycle 1 167 42 4.0
Swift Guest Investigator – Cycle 4 144 49 2.9
Suzaku Guest Investigator – Cycle 3 120 50 2.4
TOTAL 3 Funds provided by ARAA allocations to the agencies 3660 are a temporary 1092 perturbation 3.4 on these trends.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5-2