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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FIGURE 7.9 The two U.S. Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope projects: (Upper) The Giant Magellan Telescope is a 25‐meter‐class telescope comprising seven 8.4‐meter subapertures, one of which is already undergoing polishing. Laser tomography will provide adaptive optics correction in small fields over much of the sky while correction for ground‐level seeing will be incorporated over large fields. The baseline project includes an initial suite of three to four instruments to be selected in 2011 from eight concepts currently in development. Artist's rendering of GMT and support facilities at Las Campanas, Chile. Courtesy of GMTO; image by Todd Mason/Mason Productions. (Lower) The Thirty Meter Telescope primary mirror comprises 492 hexagonal segments with active control and a 30‐meter‐effective‐diameter aperture. An on‐axis segment has been cast and polished, and an off‐axis segment is currently undergoing polishing. There are nine instruments planned for the first decade of operations, of which three are planned for first light. Most of these instruments operate in conjunction with sophisticated adaptive optics systems. Credit: TMT Observatory Corporation. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 7-34
The committee reviewed a technical risk assessment and sensitivity analysis of the anticipated cost and schedule for GMT and TMT that indicated the risk is medium to medium high. A cost sensitivity study based only on the telescope optics and instruments concluded that the construction costs of GMT and TMT would be $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively (at a 70 percent confidence level). Assuming the current status of the projects, the dates for full operations of the two telescopes (defined as including three instruments and the adaptive optics system) were estimated as spring 2024 for GMT, and between summer 2025 and summer 2030 for TMT depending on assumptions about segment manufacture and delivery. The telescope projects estimated their annual operations costs (including facility and instrument upgrades) as being $36 million for GMT and $55 million for TMT. Although the committee did not analyze these estimates in detail, they are far below the usual rule of thumb for large projects (10 percent of construction costs per year); should the projects go forward, their operations costs will need to be scrutinized in considerable detail. The committee did not evaluate the cost estimate or risks for the E- ELT, but the ESO estimate is €1 billion with a start of operations in 2018. The two U.S.-led projects, GMT and TMT, are in fairly advanced states of design. GMT has already cast one of its six off-axis mirrors, which is currently being polished. TMT has cast, polished, and mounted an on-axis segment and is in the process of polishing an off-axis segment. Furthermore, through a combination of private and international partnerships, both projects have made considerable progress on their financing. The question, now, is whether or not the federal government can afford to become a partner in one of these projects and, if so, which one. The arguments for federal partnership are strong. First, the science case for a GSMT is highly compelling, and a federal share will ensure access to observing time for all U.S. astronomers, not just those associated with partner institutions. 21 This is a principle that is similar to the Telescope System Instrumentation Program (TSIP) program philosophy that has been so successfully implemented with respect to existing privately operated telescopes. Second, partnership can greatly enhance and improve these projects by bringing a much larger experience base and resources to them. This will be particularly important during the operations phase when funds to run the telescopes must be found and new and expensive instruments will need to be constructed. In the committee’s judgment, due to the severe budget limitations, a federal partnership in a GSMT will be limited to a minority role with one project. For the construction phase, a potential MREFC funding wedge opens up in the second half of the decade (after ALMA, ATST, and LSST have passed their peak funding) that would allow for a federal share in a GSMT to be supported by the MREFC line by the end of this decade. For the operations phase, in the optimistic budget-doubling funding scenario, some funding could be available by the last few years of the decade; in the flat budget scenario, few if any operations funds would be available in this decade. However, the GSMT projects are at a pivotal point where some form of commitment from the U.S. government at this time is crucial to having the projects go forward at all. Owing to the highly compelling science case for this class of telescope, the committee recommends immediate selection by NSF of one of the two U.S.-led GSMT projects for a future federal investment that will secure a significant public partnership role in the development, the operation, and telescope access. This action should facilitate access to and optimize the benefit of the largest ground-based telescopes for the entire U.S. community, by leveraging the significant private and international investments in this frontier endeavor. The committee further recommends as a goal that access should be sought at the level of at least a 25 percent share. This share could be secured through whatever combination of construction (that is, MREFC), operating funds, and instrumentation support is most favorable. The committee believes that access to a GSMT will, as opportunities opened by large telescopes have in the past, transform U.S. astronomy by means of its broad and powerful scientific reach, and that 21 Institutional members as of May 2010 were, for GMT, Astronomy Australia Limited, the Australian National Observatory, Carnegie Institution for Science, Harvard University, Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Arizona, and for TMT were the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, and the University of California. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 7-35
Page 1:
PREPUBLICATION COPY
Page 4 and 5:
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fi
Page 7 and 8:
COMMITTEE FOR A DECADAL SURVEY OF A
Page 9 and 10:
Panel on Stars and Stellar Evolutio
Page 11 and 12:
DOUGLAS FINKBEINER, Harvard Univers
Page 13:
SPACE STUDIES BOARD CHARLES F. KENN
Page 16 and 17:
activities 2 that have emerged from
Page 18 and 19:
In addition to the 27 panel meeting
Page 20 and 21:
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This re
Page 22 and 23:
The Accelerating Universe 2-26 The
Page 24 and 25:
APPENDIXES A Summary of Science Fro
Page 26 and 27:
light up the universe, marking the
Page 28 and 29:
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM Maintaining a b
Page 30 and 31:
TABLE ES.4 Space: Recommended Activ
Page 32 and 33:
Cosmic Dawn: Searching for the Firs
Page 34 and 35:
this imprint would both probe funda
Page 36 and 37:
important outcome will be to open u
Page 38 and 39:
estimated to be on the order of $20
Page 40 and 41:
observatories. For NASA an annual b
Page 42 and 43:
surveys of large fields, enabling s
Page 44 and 45:
RECOMMENDATION: U.S. investors in a
Page 46 and 47:
departments and the community as a
Page 48 and 49:
dominate spending; (2) private-publ
Page 50 and 51:
us was certainly evident during the
Page 52 and 53:
BOX 2-1 Other Worlds Around Other S
Page 54 and 55:
FIGURE 2‐2 The source 3C 75, show
Page 56 and 57:
FIGURE 2‐3 Numerical simulation o
Page 58 and 59:
FIGURE 2‐4 Left panel: Image of t
Page 60 and 61:
FIGURE 2‐6 Top: Schematic of the
Page 62 and 63:
Most stars with masses smaller than
Page 64 and 65:
BOX 2-2 The Origin of Planets After
Page 66 and 67:
send material raining into the cent
Page 68 and 69:
BOX 2-4 Lifecycles in Galaxies One
Page 70 and 71:
Stars Stars are the most observable
Page 72 and 73:
ubiquitous high-energy charged-part
Page 74 and 75:
The Nature of Inflation As describe
Page 76 and 77:
FIGURE 2‐11 Pie chart showing the
Page 78 and 79:
An important clue to the nature of
Page 80 and 81:
Studying the properties of neutron
Page 82 and 83:
FIGURE 2‐14 A possible pathway is
Page 84 and 85:
partners and makes recommendations
Page 86 and 87:
As astronomy research has blossomed
Page 88 and 89:
are increasingly relevant. The Euro
Page 90 and 91:
TABLE 3-1 Currently Operating OIR F
Page 92 and 93:
29% 1990 44% US Priv US Fed Other E
Page 94 and 95:
CONCLUSION: Complex and high-cost f
Page 96 and 97:
Space Observatories The Laser Inter
Page 98 and 99:
Physics Division (PHY); the Mathema
Page 101 and 102:
4 Astronomy in Society Astronomy of
Page 103 and 104:
FIGURE 4‐2 The dust sculptures of
Page 105 and 106:
FIGURE 4‐5 President Obama takes
Page 107 and 108:
Astronomy Inspires in the Classroom
Page 109 and 110:
teaching the scientific method. The
Page 111 and 112:
where the fraction of astronomers h
Page 113 and 114:
Percentage of AAS Membership by Fie
Page 115 and 116:
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 PL SO IM AG SF IN S
Page 117 and 118:
FIGURE 4‐12 Number (top panel) an
Page 119 and 120:
Professional training needs to acco
Page 121:
assistant and associate professor p
Page 124 and 125:
fluctuating level of funding for as
Page 126 and 127:
THEORY Emerging Trends in Theoretic
Page 128 and 129:
Central to the Galaxies across Cosm
Page 130 and 131:
TABLE 5‐2 Support for astrophysic
Page 132 and 133:
would normally be for a five-year p
Page 134 and 135:
FIGURE 5‐7 Highly cited HST publi
Page 136 and 137:
y optical and radio astronomers are
Page 138 and 139:
FIGURE 5‐8 Number of PhDs per yea
Page 140 and 141:
ated by the Program Prioritization
Page 142 and 143:
nulling interferometry. The appropr
Page 144 and 145: FIGURE 5‐9 The richness of the su
Page 146 and 147: RECOMMENDATION: NASA and NSF suppor
Page 148 and 149: FIGURE 6‐1. All sky map as observ
Page 150 and 151: FIGURE 6‐3 NASA mission cost over
Page 152 and 153: FIGURE 6‐5 Gemini North with Sout
Page 154 and 155: TOWARD FUTURE PROJECTS, MISSIONS, A
Page 156 and 157: 3. Investment in new and upgraded i
Page 158 and 159: etween several competing elements i
Page 161 and 162: 7 Realizing the Opportunities The p
Page 163 and 164: FIGURE 7.1 Survey time line showing
Page 165 and 166: SCIENCE OBJECTIVES FOR THE DECADE T
Page 167 and 168: Box 7.1 Implementing a Cosmic Dawn
Page 169 and 170: JWST, with its superb mid-infrared
Page 171 and 172: optical imaging of brighter galaxie
Page 173 and 174: Box 7.3 Implementing the Physics of
Page 175 and 176: FIGURE 7.2 Multiwavelength images o
Page 177 and 178: Recommendations for New Space Activ
Page 179 and 180: FIGURE 7.4 Science accomplishments
Page 181 and 182: significance of mergers in the buil
Page 183 and 184: independent advice committee review
Page 185 and 186: committee review. It could range be
Page 187 and 188: Laboratory Astrophysics As describe
Page 189 and 190: Recommendations for New Ground-Base
Page 191 and 192: Program for instrumentation and fac
Page 193: excel at high spectral and spatial
Page 197 and 198: FIGURE 7.10 ACTA would be, like the
Page 199 and 200: Advanced Technologies and Instrumen
Page 201 and 202: LISA as soon as possible subject to
Page 203: FIGURE 7.14 DOE recommended program
Page 207 and 208: A Summary of Science Frontiers Pane
Page 209 and 210: PLANETARY SYSTEMS AND STAR FORMATIO
Page 211 and 212: A preliminary recommended program w
Page 213 and 214: certified as independent work perfo
Page 215 and 216: penalty based on an assessment of s
Page 217 and 218: The results show excellent correlat
Page 219 and 220: $12 MILLION TO $40 MILLION RANGE CM
Page 221 and 222: decadal research strategy with reco
Page 223 and 224: CFP CHIPSat CIP CGRO CMB CMU CoBRA
Page 225 and 226: NRC NSB NSF NSF-AGS NSF-ARC NSF-AST
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?