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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

B Summary of Program Prioritization Panels’ Recommendations The work of the individual Program Prioritization Panels (PPPs) provided important input to the work of Astro2010. The four panels were: • Panel on Electromagnetic Observations from Space (EOS) • Panel on Optical and Infrared Astronomy from the Ground (OIR) • Panel on Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation (PAG) • Panel on Radio, Millimeter, and Submillimeter from the Ground (RMS) The panels were charged to identify and recommend a prioritized program of federal investment in research activities that involve: • Space-based observations of astrophysical phenomena primarily by means of electromagnetic radiation; • Observations of astrophysical phenomena primarily by means of optical and infrared measurements from the ground; • Exploring areas at the interface of physics and astronomy such as gravitational radiation, TeV gamma-ray astronomy, and free-flying space missions testing fundamental gravitational physics; and • Observations of astrophysical phenomena primarily by means of measurements from the ground in the radio, millimeter, and submillimeter portions of the electromagnetic spectrum In formulating their conclusions, the PPPs were charged to draw on several sources of information: (1) the science forefronts identified by the Astro2010 Science Frontiers Panels, (2) input from the proponents of research activities, and (3) independent cost and technical readiness assessments. The panels’ recommendations were integrated into a program for all of astronomy and astrophysics by the Astro2010 survey committee. In particular, the PPPs were charged to: • Report on the status of existing research activities to set the context for future research activities, incorporating findings of the survey’s Infrastructure Study Groups. • Preview and compare proposed research activities including those carried forward from previous surveys that have not been given a formal construction start. • State the relative importance of (a) smaller projects and generic research programs that involve competitive peer review and (b) programs that leverage public and private infrastructure investments, where appropriate. • Assess and describe best available estimates of the construction costs and lifetimes for each recommended research activity together with their full running costs (operations, science, and upgrades). • Identify particular risks for each research activity that would adversely affect the projected cost, technical readiness, or schedule of the activity. Identify those factors that could change an activity’s priority and/or scope. • Informed by (a) the recommendations of the science frontier panels and (b) the panel’s own research activity assessments, recommend a prioritized, balanced, and integrated research program which includes a rank ordering of research activities and a balanced technology development program. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION B-1
A preliminary recommended program was used to identify activities that were subject to an independent technical evaluation and cost estimate. The panel’s final recommendation to the Survey Committee included consideration of the results of the independent technical evaluation and cost estimate. Each PPP provided the Survey Committee with an interim internal and confidential summary report of its recommended program in the Fall of 2009 and complete its panel report thereafter. The panel reports are published in the second volume of the decadal survey along with the reports of the Science Frontiers Panels. The main results from the four PPPs are summarized in Table B.1. Table B.1 Summary of Priority Activities as Recommended by the Program Prioritization Panels. EOS Project PAG Project RMS Project OIR Project Program Cost Appraisal (category) Program Cost Appraisal (category) Program Cost Appraisal (category) (1) WFIRST $1.5B (L) (1) LISA $1.5B (L) (1) HERA‐I and $25M + HERA‐II $85M (M) (2) IXO $1.0B (L) (2) ACTA (AGIS) $0.2B (L) (2) FASR $100M (M) (project start) (2) CCAT $110M (M) (3) Exoplanet Mission $0.7B (L) (1) Pulsar Timing Array for Gravitational Wave Detection (1) BLISS $0.2B (M) (1) NASA Explorer Augmentation (2) Explorer $0.5B (M) (2) Technology development augmentation and ULDB R&D and augmentation $70M (M) ATA Enhancement $1B (M) Enhancements to GBT, EVLA, VLBA, ALMA, Enhancements to CARMA, EHT $550M NASA (M), $150M NSF+DOE (M) (3) R&A $0.2B (M) (3) Auger North $60M (US portion) (M) Program Cost Appraisal (category) (1) GSMT ≥$1B (L) (2) LSST $460M (L) $44M (M) (1) Mid‐scale NSF program augmentation (OIR+PAG+RMS) $120M (2) TSIP augmentation $25M ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ (2) OIR System augmentation ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Small, unprioritized programs $200M $40M (M) $61M (M) $100M NOTE: Entries under each panel are in priority order within size category. Note that the RMS panel has two second equal priorities. The EOS costs are shown for the panel’s enhanced budget scenario. The tabulated costs are in FY2010 dollars and are estimates for the decade. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION B-2
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 and 194: excel at high spectral and spatial
Page 195 and 196: The committee reviewed a technical
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: PLANETARY SYSTEMS AND STAR FORMATIO
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?