Community Input for the upcoming Astronomy & Astrophysics Decadal Survey

The following input has been received from the community.

April 8, 2008	Jim Ulvestad, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
April 3, 2008	Richard Mushotzky, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
March 20, 2008	AURA Solar Observatory Council
February 19, 2008	Neil Gehrels, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
February 4, 2008	Michael Garcia, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
January 14, 2008	Jeffrey Linsky, JILA, University of Colorado
January 9, 2008	Comments from the Town Hall Session at the American Astronomical Society Meeting in Austin, TX on January 9, 2008, Audio and video versions are available on the AAS Website (session 86).
November 27, 2007	Members of the AAS Working Group on Laboratory Astrophysics (WGLA) and Members of the 2006 NASA-sponsored Laboratory Astrophysics Workshop (LAW) Science Organizing Committee (SOC)
November 6, 2007	Steven Kilston, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
October 22, 2007	Katie Freese, University of Michigan
October 16, 2007	Bruce Balick, University of Washington
October 13, 2007	Bruce Balick, University of Washington Bruce Balick (2), University of Washington Bruce Balick (3), University of Washington
September 20, 2007	Chris Impey, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona
August 30, 2007	Kevin Covey, Marcel Agueros, and Anil Seth, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
August 4, 2007	Bob Krekorian, former NASA SETI researcher
July 26, 2007	William S. Smith, Jr., President, Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy
July 5, 2007	Todd Boroson, National Optical Astronomy Observatory
June 22, 2007	Mark Giampapa, National Solar Observatory
May 18, 2007	John Huchra, Harvard University
May 4, 2007	Bart Wakker, University of Wisconsin at Madison
May 1, 2007	AURA Board of Directors, Associate of Universities for Research in Astronomy Alan Whiting
April 24, 2007	Richard Larson, Yale University
April 21, 2007	Garth Illingworth, University of California Observatories
March 29, 2007	Stephen Unwin, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
March 28, 2007	Eric Schlegel, University of Texas-San Antonio
March 22, 2007	Christopher De Vries, California State University Stanislaus
March 19, 2007	Virginia Trimble, University of California at Irvine, and Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network
March 18, 2007	Mark Sykes, Planetary Science Institute
March 17, 2007	Mark Sykes, Planetary Science Institute
March 13, 2007	Charles A. Hibbitts, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Richard Mushotzky, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Stephen Unwin, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Stephen Unwin (2), Jet Propulsion Laboratory
February 11, 2007	Dan Akerib, Case Western Reserve University
February 9, 2007	Jay A. Frogel, Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.

The Boards appreciate all input—please direct your comments to astro2010@nas.edu.

Your comments, name and affiliation may be posted here for the consideration of the community. **

**Disclaimer: The views and comments presented here are in no way a reflection of the views of the Board on Physics and Astronomy, the Space Studies Board, the National Research Council or The National Academies. The comments posted will not necessarily guide the study or be included in a report.

Jim Ulvestad, received on April 8, 2008
	Dear Colleagues, I am writing to comment on the structure of the upcoming decadal survey. My primary comment is that a well-defined process should be developed to revisit the initial decadal recommendations in the middle of the decade, perhaps in 2014 or 2015. The reasons for this are both scientific and programmatic in nature. (1) Scientific: Astronomy changes fairly rapidly, and new discoveries do not necessarily respect decadal boundaries. Given the amount of time it takes to develop relatively large instruments or telescopes, one cannot afford to wait 10 years for scientific changes of course to begin. Thus, one needs some mechanism for revisiting the science priorities mid-decade. (2) Technology/readiness: Similarly, the results of the last decadal survey should result in some more rigorous costing and technology readiness criteria to be used in the Astro2010 deliberations. However, if a program is scientifically important and not quite at the degree of readiness required in 2010, but may be so within a year or two, it should not be required to wait until 2020 to be endorsed. Both of the above considerations argue for a careful reconsideration of scientific and programmatic readiness in the middle of the decade, perhaps in 2014 or 2015. The decadal process in 2010 should include a capability for provisional acceptance, whereby a program is deemed scientifically important but perhaps 1-3 years from full technological/costing readiness. Such programs then could be the first on the list to be reconsidered in 2014, with the appropriate level of new technology and costing material, although new ideas also could be put forward at that time. Thanks for your consideration of my comment. Best, Jim Ulvestad National Radio Astronomy Observatory Back to the Top
Richard Mushotzky, received on April 3, 2008
	folks: I would like to make two suggestions 1) for the members of the panels (no matter how they are organized) I strongly recommend that at least two of the panelists (in each panel) have experience with NASA/NSF/DOE/International projects. Many members of our community have been members of science working groups, instrument/project development teams or other oversight groups. These individuals have learned a lot about costing, mission creep and the necessity to understand the relationship between limited resources, schedule and changes in science scope. Thus inclusion of people with these backgrounds will automatically add relevant expertise to the challenging problem of controlling cost while keeping strong science. I have been a member of many such groups and find a strong difference in understanding of these issues between individuals who have been involved in projects and those who have not. 2) We should use the expertise of the editors of ApJ to identify those members of our community who are making the major contributions to science at the present time and over the last few years. I have talked to one of the editors and he says it would be rather easy to identify the 200 or so individuals who are at the forefront of research. This would be an objective criteria rather than the 'I know someone' type activity that is presently used. Yours Richard Mushotzky Back to the Top
AURA Solar Observatory Council, received on March 20, 2008
	We, the members of the AURA Solar Observatory Council, wish to convey our views as to how the field of Solar Astronomy should be addressed in the upcoming Decadal Survey. In the past, the Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey has provided valuable recommendations which have served as a reference point for agency decision making. Some of these include: The establishment of the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope as the future flagship mission for ground based solar astronomy. The need to separate the National Solar Observatory from NOAO in order to promote the unique needs of the solar community. Although solar astronomy and its community clearly have unique needs, these still overlap significantly with the broader field of astronomy that will be addressed by the Decadal Survey. For example, future observations and models of stellar evolution could be highly complemented by what will take place in solar astronomy. Clearly other assessments such as the solar and space physics survey might provide important input to NASA, however ground based solar astronomy is imbedded within the NSF astronomy program and this requires attention within the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey. The AURA Board and the AURA Solar Observatory Council have undertaken the task of synthesizing their view of the most important and productive ground-based solar science initiatives that could be realized during the next decade. To this end the SOC will constitute a small committee that will solicit and synthesize a summary report based primarily on the views of the AURA solar community. This activity should result in a brief report to be presented to the AURA board and to the NAS astronomy decadal survey before May of 2009. Sincerely, Dr. Jeffrey Kuhn (Chair) Institute for Astronomy/University of Hawaii Dr. Thomas Ayres (Vice Chair) Center for Astrophysics & Space Astronomy, University of Colorado Yvonne Elsworth School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham Dr. Sarah Gibson High Altitude Observatory Mr. William Gibson Space Science and Engineering Division, Southwest Research Institute Dr. Todd Hoeksema Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory , Stanford University Dr. Richard Larson Astronomy Department, Yale University Dr. William Smith (ex officio) AURA Dr. Oskar von der Lühe Kiepenheuer-Institut für Sonnenphysik Dr. Rene Walterbos Astronomy Department, New Mexico State University Back to the Top
Neil Gehrels, received on February 19, 2008
	Dear Organizers, I have an input for the Decadal Survey planning. At your interesting AAS presentation there was discussion of a mid-decade review or some sort or a continued presence of the panel. Ten years are a long time in both scientific discovery and science policy. I am very much in favor of a mid-decade check on progress and priorities. One way to set up a mid-term assessment would be for the Chair and Co-chair of the Survey to meet with various lead science organizations (BPA, SSB, CAA, AAS Council, ...) to solicit inputs after ~5 years concerning the progress on survey recommendations. If there are serious problem areas identified, the NRC could set up a mid-term review of those specific areas. This would involve a panel and community input, but at a much smaller scale than the Decadal Survey. Sincerely, Neil Gehrels Back to the Top
Michael Garcia, received on February 4, 2008
	Feb 4 2008: Dear Anneila, Meg, Rocky, and Simon: Thank you for leading a very interesting discussion at the AAS meeting last month, on our next Decadal Survey and also on the culture of astronomy. I appreciate your efforts to get the widest community involvement possible, your efforts to raise these questions at public meetings, and your willingness to listen. Below are a few thoughts I had after listening to, and participating in, the discussion. MAINTAINING A NRC/DECADAL COMMITTEE Events of the last decade indicate that we have lost some influence over spending decisions effecting our own field. The premiere method we use to assert our influence has been the Decadal Survey process, by which we do the very hard and painful work of winnowing down the multitude of good ideas and projects we dream up into a much smaller number of projects that we believe will fit within the expected budget. Evidence of our loss of influence can be found in (at least) 3 separate things: 1) The final FY08 omnibus budget (see footnote 1) which gave specific direction for NASA/Astrophysics Division's limited mission development funds. 2) The FY07 budget markups (see footnote 2) which directed to DOE to begin a space based dark energy mission without NASA which ultimately lead to the creation of an ad-hoc committee - the BEPAC - to direct a large section of the astronomy budget. 3) The Presidents 'Vision for Space Exploration' generated pressure to re-assess NASA's science programs towards more 'local' science which could be more directly linked with exploration of our solar system. While all of these events were commented upon by individuals and by our various standing committees, the committee with the most clout on the Hill and amongst our community (the NRC Decadal Committee) was not able to comment on these events because it was not in existence during this time frame. If we are to regain influence and insure that future budgetary directions come with the input of the entire astrophysics community we must re-vitalize and strengthen the process which has worked well for the last ~50 years, the process of the Decadal Survey. The decadal process has been recognized as a good model by both other fields of science (who envy and now emulate it) and also by our funding agencies (who value it so highly they spend their money as it recommends). The Decadal process began with the 1964 report by Whitford 'Ground-Based Astronomy: A Ten Year Program' and changed in 1970 to include space based programs with the Greenstein report 'Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1970s'. Given the rapidly increasing pace of change in the world today, it is time once again to change the Decadal Survey process. It is time to change and strengthen this process by keeping the decadal committee in place throughout the decade. It would NOT be necessary to retain the same level of funding (nor effort) throughout the decade, but some residual funding level and regular meetings of a skeleton committee would allow our entire community to react to changes in the funding levels or scientific environment in a timely manner. Should substantial changes occur, the ongoing existence of the Decadal Committee would make it possible to rapidly and effectively ramp-up the effort to collect community input, should the funding agencies (ie, NASA, NSF, DOE) desire it. No other astronomy committee has the 'gravitas' of the decadal committee, and that gravitas comes both from the fact that it is a NRC committee and the fact that it has effectively engaged the entire astrophysics community. RATING both SCIENCE and MISSIONS There has been some discussion of changing the structure of the Decadal Survey so that it recommends 'key science areas' rather than (or in addition to) specific missions or projects. While identifying the most exciting science topics to pursue in the next decade is something the Decadal Survey must do, it must not stop there. This entire exercise is about doing that exciting science within a fixed budget. Our ability to live within that budget is why the funding agencies listen to us, and why other fields of science envy us for being able to do the hard work of fitting our desires within a fixed budget. Therefore the Decadal must continue to recommend specific missions - a specific suite of both space and ground based (and maybe even moon based) missions that optimizes the available funding over the desired science. Those 'missions' should include theory investigations and education/outreach projects as well. It is clear that we must get a handle on costs, and avoid the 'under costing' that occurred in parts of the 2000-2010 Decadal. There are at least 2 ways to do this - any one of which would be sufficient, but in the end both are likely to be necessary. 1) We can develop more accurate cost estimates. Even after we do so, we are still likely to see some level of cost growth. However, it would be a significant improvement if we did well enough to accurately categorize missions in the large/medium/small categories, a standard which we failed to achieve in the 2000-2010 decadal. 2) We can add in 'trip wires' which request a community re-assessment of missions if they grow by specific amounts. Of course, to do this we would need to retain our method of community input - the Decadal Committee - in force throughout the decade. Note that NASA already has such trip wires built into all missions it undertakes, and these 'trip wires' are exactly what caused the recent review and down-scope of JWST. However, these NASA project reviews are necessarily limited to individual projects, and the community appears to desire the ability to consider changes within an individual project in relation to the entire suite of projects planned for the decade. Only by doing so can we maintain an optimized science plan. MULTI-AGENCY SUPPORT: Astronomy is blessed with support from numerous sources, both public and private. Assessing the dollar value of this support over the next decade, and developing a plan to live within it is one of the very hard tasks the Decadal Survey Committee must do. One significant change in this support within the last decade is a re-vitalized interest and funding from DOE to support both ground and space based astronomy. However, DOE does not traditionally generate public 5-year budget plans in the same way that NASA does, so assessing the dollar value of this support, and merging it into a coherent Decadal plan, will be one of the challenges the committee must rise to. It can only help to have the DOE fully involved in the Decadal process, and it seems likely DOE do for the first time for this 2010-2020 survey. Sincerely, Dr. Michael Garcia Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory ------------------ footnote 1: From the FY08 Omnibus Approps Bill: Astrophysics: $1,599.5 The amended bill includes: • Not less than $280,000,000 for the Hubble Space Telescope • Not less than $545,400,000 for the James Webb Space Telescope • Not less than $90,200,000 for the Global Precipitation Measurement mission • Not less than $626,400,000 for the Mars Exploration Program • Not less than $60,000,000 for the Space Interferometry Mission A total of $60,000,000, an increase of $38,400,000 above the budget request, has been provided for the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM). The Appropriations Committees disagree with the Administration's budget request of refocusing the Navigator Program to fund only core interferometry and related planet-finding science and reducing SIM to a development program. It should be noted that this mission was recommended by the National Academies Decadal Astrophysics report in 1990 and 2000 [SIM, as recommended by the National Academy's Decadal Astrophysics Report] and should be considered a priority. With the funds proposed, NASA is to begin the development phase of the program in order to capitalize on more than $300,000,000 already invested by the Agency. The SIM program has successfully passed all its technological milestones and is thus ready for development. footnote 2: From the Senate Energy and Water Committee Mark-up of the FY07 Appropriations Bill, HEP section The Committee is concerned that the joint mission between the Department of Energy and NASA is untenable because of NASA's reorganization and change in focus towards manned space flight. The Committee directs the Department to immediately begin planning for a single-agency space-based dark energy mission and to conduct a peer-reviewed competition to select a single winning proposal based both upon the quality of science and the overall cost to the Department. Back to the Top
Jeffrey Linsky, received on January 14, 2008
	Suggestions for the 2010 Decade Survey Committee Previous Astronomy Survey Committees have assumed an optimistic scenario for funding by NASA and the NSF during the next 10 years. In addition, the cost estimates for projects have often proven to be well below actual costs. Unfortunately, the funding of astronomy programs in NASA and the NSF has been flat during the last few years and it is likely that the next decade will see flat funding at best or decreasing funding in real dollars. I say this because the discretionary portion of the federal budget is being squeezed by rising nondiscretionary spending (e.g., social security, medicare, interest on the debt) and defence costs. Given the likelihood of decreasing federal dollars for astronomy, the next Astronomy Survey Committee should follow these guidelines: (1) Emphasize scientific priorities rather than specific missions to accomplish these priorities. It often happens that the highly creative people in our community come up with better ways of doing the high priority science than the concepts and plans presented to the Survey Committee. A recent example is the concept of New Worlds Observer as a better way to study exoplanets than the original TPF concepts presented to the last Survey Committee. It is important not to be locked into a specific implementation project when a better idea may come forward (and should be solicited) to accomplish the high priority science. (2) NASA does not have the resources to develop two flagship missions at the same time. A major recommendation to NASA (and Congress) should be to do only one at a time. NASA should be devoting a majority of its development money to moderate and small size missions. Then if money gets very tight, NASA can kill or delay one of the moderate or small missions without hurting the rest of the program. This leads to more flexibility. (3) The operating costs of long-lived observatories generally exceed the development costs. Thus it is critical to factor in the operating cost of observatories and telescopes in the decade cost scenarios. This is critically important for the NSF which has a challenge in funding the operation costs for ALMA. (4) It makes no sense build and operate an observatory if there is inadequate money to fund the analysis of data obtained with the facility. When this occurs, US funding agencies pay for the facility and foreign astronomers use it to make the major discoveries. (5) The Astronomy Survey Committee should encourage private funding of projects, but the funding should be for construction and an endowment for the costs of operations and new instruments and data analysis. (6) Astronomers have a strong bias towards very large projects that push the envelope of technology and funding. In an era of flat or decreasing funding, we need to moderate these desires. Jeffrey Linsky 14 January 2008 Back to the Top
AAS WGLA and NASA LAW SOC, received on November 27, 2007
	Dear Decadal Survey: In response to the question * What subfields at the boundaries of astronomy and astrophysics should be included in the Decadal Survey? Answering this question so as to ensure the vitality and future of astronomy and astrophysics requires taking a big picture view of the field and its needs. Otherwise, a large part of the foundation of astronomy and astrophysics could be defined as being at the boundaries of the field. I am speaking in specific of Laboratory Astrophysics which consists of laboratory experiments and theoretical calculations motived by problems in astrophysics. Astronomy is primarily an observational science detecting photons generated by atomic, molecular, and solid state processes. Our understanding of the universe also relies on knowledge of the evolution of matter (nuclear and particle physics) and of the dynamical processes shaping it (plasma physics). Hence, our quest to understand the cosmos rests firmly on scientific knowledge in atomic, molecular, solid state, nuclear, particle, and plasma physics. Chemistry is implicitly included here as part of molecular physics. In past decades much of the laboratory astrophysics work required to move astronomy and astrophysics forward was funded by programs in atomic, molecular, solid state, nuclear, particle, and plasma physics. Astronomy and astrophysics benefited from laboratory astrophysics research without having to support it at a level anywhere close to that needed to sustain the field. The last decade, however, has seen the funding reality change drastically. Programs which previously supported laboratory astrophysics research are no longer doing so. The research currently supported by these programs has diverged from the needs of the astronomy and astrophysics community. From a funding perspective, laboratory astrophysics now lies on the boundary between fields and as a result laboratory astrophysics is suffering from the insufficient support it is receiving. To recap and close we quote from the 2006 NASA-sponsored Laboratory Astrophysics Workshop White Paper (http://www.physics.unlv.edu/labastro/whitepaper.html): ``Laboratory astrophysics and complementary theoretical calculations are the foundations of astronomical and planetary research and will remain so for many generations to come. From the level of scientific conception [of space-based missions and ground-based observatories] to that of the scientific return, it is our understanding of the underlying processes that allows us to address fundamental questions regarding the origins and evolution of galaxies, stars, planetary systems, and life in the cosmos. In this regard, laboratory astrophysics is much like detector and instrument development at NASA and NSF; these efforts are necessary for the astronomical research funded by the agencies.... Without laboratory astrophysics, the scientific return from current and future NASA missions and NSF ground-based observatories will diminish significantly. Without laboratory astrophysics the future progress of astronomy and astrophysics is imperiled.'' For all these above reasons we urge the 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey to view laboratory astrophysics in its proper light as being part of the foundation of astronomy and astrophysics. We also urge the Decadal Survey to follow the prioritized proposals they make all the way through to the underlying laboratory astrophysics data needed and to recommend sufficient funding to ensure the long term vitality of laboratory astrophysics and thereby of astronomy and astrophysics as a whole. Respectfully submitted by the following * Members of the AAS Working Group on Laboratory Astrophysics (WGLA) www.aas.org/labastro/ * Members of the 2006 NASA-sponsored Laboratory Astrophysics Workshop (LAW) Science Organizing Committee (SOC) www.physics.unlv.edu/labastro/ Nancy Brickhouse - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (AAS WGLA, NASA LAW SOC) John Cowan - University of Oklahoma (AAS WGLA) Paul Drake - University of Michigan (AAS WGLA) Steve Federman - University of Toledo (AAS WGLA, NASA LAW SOC) Adam Frank - University of Rochester (AAS WGLA) Paul Goldsmith - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (AAS WGLA) Wick Haxton - University of Washington (AAS WGLA) Eric Herbst - Ohio State University (AAS WGLA) Keith Olive - University of Minnesota (AAS WGLA) Farid Salama - NASA Ames Research Center (AAS WGLA, NASA LAW SOC) Daniel Wolf Savin - Columbia University (AAS WGLA, NASA LAW SOC) Phillip Stancil - University of Georgia (NASA LAW SOC) Joe Weingartner - George Mason University (NASA LAW SOC) Back to the Top
Steven Kilston, received on November 6, 2007
	Dear people, I would just like to reiterate a request that I made a year ago to Meg Urry. I believe that the process of evaluating feasibility and cost estimates considered by the Astro 2010 Decadal Committee would likely benefit from having at least one astronomer with wide aerospace industry background participating. I realize that there may be concerns about information leakage (actually, many of us have security clearances and are well trained in non-disclosure) and vested interests (but I think that applies to academic and government scientists too). There are many candidates I am aware of who have high integrity and could provide valuable insights to the committee in areas of technology, implementation, performance, and cost realities. They would sometimes be able to ask questions, interpret answers, and apply credible judgment using lessons from experience and important criteria not always considered even by excellent observational astronomers. Thank you very much for reading my heartfelt suggestion, Yours, Steve Dr. Steven Kilston Manager, Terrestrial Planet Finder and SNAP Telescope Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. Back to the Top
Katie Freese, received on October 22, 2007
	I wanted to followup on the message Garth Illingworth sent to you regarding the inclusion of particle astrophysics in the next decadal survey. The AAAC had a discussion about this, and I wanted to reiterate the importance of including these topics in the next round: dark energy, dark matter, those aspects of neutrinos that can be studied e.g. with CMB or large scale structure, etc. Best, Katie Freese Back to the Top
Bruce Balick, received on October 16, 2007
	Subject: NSF policy on "Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects" NAP January 2004 In a letter to the National Academy of Science dated 12 June 2002, several senior U.S. senators expressed their concern about the manner in which major research facilities funded by the NSF are prioritized and executed. In response, the NAS appointed the "Committee on Setting Priorities for NSF-Sponsored Large Research Facility Projects" (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/nsf-priorities/). Members of that committee included highly experienced and visible members of the scientific community. That committee presented a specific stet of recommendations in a report entitled "Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects" in January 2004 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10895). The primary recommendations of the report include specific procedures and selection criteria that help to assure the credibility and success of large projects to be considered for MRE/FC status at the NSF.* In response, the NSF created the position of Deputy Director in the Office of Large Facility Projects (http://www.nsf.gov/oig/LFP_Report.pdf) in December 2004. So far as I am aware, that position remains staffed and active. It would be reasonable to assume that by now the Office of Large Facility Projects has had quite a record of experience and a fair accumulation of wisdom regarding the implementation of large, costly projects. I would imagine much of this experience and wisdom will be apropos and useful in establishing productive procedures for consideration of large projects by the upcoming Decadal Survey. I therefore urge that if you haven't done so already, you may wish to review the highlights of the 2004 summary of the NAS Committee (see the footnote below) and consult with the appropriate Deputy Director at the LFP office at the NSF. I should hope that any pertinent information would be appreciated by the appropriate panels of the Decadal Survey for several reasons: (1) to assure the highest quality list of facility recommendations, (2) to help to expedite the approval of MRE/FC projects by any U.S. agency, not just the NSF, and (3) to undersetand how the large projects recommended by the Decadal Survey will best find their way through the funding maze in future years. Bruce Balick Back to the Top
Bruce Balick, received on October 13, 2007
	Subject: Improved cost, schedule, and engineering evaluations of major decadal projects The previous Decadal Survey in astronomy set the key strategic goals for the present decade, and the top priorities have been energetically pursued ever since. This is truly a success story. However, the weakest part of the previous Decadal Survey was its inability to project realistic costs and hence, to queue the top projects in a manner that facilitated their implementation and funding. I urge that a pool of senior technical advisers, many of whom have years of recent experience and may be in or near their retirement years, should be developed for access by the panels. Some of them may also be familiar with the science, and may suggest technologies that might be fruitfully applied that may help to assess and control technical, schedule, and cost risks. Three examples are Barry Clark (radio), Martin Harwit (IR), and Jacques Beckers (optical). All three of these people are outstanding examples of top scientists, engineers, and project managers. Names of suitable senior engineering advisers can be sought from the managers of various groups within existing observatories, NASA centers, and DOE laboratories. Directors or former directors of observatories and PIs of facilities can provide critical advice on operating-cost runouts to the panels. Examples include Paul vanden Bout, Sidney Wolff, and Jonathan Ormes. Of course, many of the proposals to be considered by the Decade Survey panels will have only a concept description to use as a guide for cost estimation. Still, at some stage in the winnowing process, expert help from experienced project managers should be sought for sanity checks on technical issues and costs. The process of carefully structuring the Decadal Survey for Astronomy in 2010 is a difficult but essential task. I wish to thank you for the efforts you are making to make this review the most productive ever. --Bruce Balick Back to the Top
Bruce Balick (2), received on October 13, 2007
	Subject: Access to synergistic facilities for large and medium projects It has been common to submit proposals for substantial facilities (both specialized and multi-purpose) to the panels of the Decadal Survey. While this will certainly continue, the panels must also be prepared to consider more programmatic science initiatives in key ares for which a suite of instrumentation in space and on the ground is essential in order to meet their critical goals. More specifically, the use of public telescopes such as ALMA, Gemini, or Keck add synergistic science at little capital or life-cycle cost or risk to many of the proposed science programs. Proposers should be encouraged to exploit these facilities as a part of their proposals. For example, no one would be surprised if a dark-energy proposal were to be submitted that is centered on the time evolution of faint cosmological SNe over their multi-month evolution. The science goals may best be supported by monitoring the evolution in their IR spectral features using a large ground-based telescope such as Gemini in tandem with a high-throughoput, on-axis, low-dispersion spectrograph, much as gamma-ray afterglows are productively monitored with optical and radio telescopes. Essential access to the full suite of national instruments must be guaranteed by the relevant operating agencies for highly ranked programmatic projects that emerge from the Decadal Survey, even if the mission statements or operating agreements of national observatories have to be modified to make this work. I hope that the directors of the agencies will agree, at least in principle. Stubborn problems in this regard can be brought to ad-hoc peer panels or the AAAC for arbitration or policy review. The process of carefully structuring the Decadal Survey for Astronomy in 2010 is a difficult but essential task. I wish to thank you for the efforts you are making to make this review the most productive ever. --Bruce Balick Back to the Top
Bruce Balick (3), received on October 13, 2007
	Subject: Engagement in critical astrophysics projects initiated outside the U.S. Historically, large projects in astronomy throughout the postwar years were developed and built in the U.S. As CERN, the VLT, Kamiokande, and LOFAR illustrate, those days are ending if not all but over. Great research projects now arise anywhere. The advantages of collaborative participation of the U.S. astronomical community in key projects in which we might be welcome should be assessed in any complete Decadal Survey of our research opportunities. To that end, the Decadal-Survey panels should be informed about potentially receptive large prjects initiated abroad, and the enthusiasm for engagement by the U.S. astronomical community should be assessed. Key international projects should be prioritized for support from the U.S. even though the necessary commitments may take years to prosecute. The process of carefully structuring the Decadal Survey for Astronomy in 2010 is a difficult but essential task. I wish to thank you for the efforts you are making to make this review the most productive ever. --Bruce Balick Back to the Top
Chris Impey, received on September 20, 2007
	This is to add some brief comments to the excellent input you have already received and posted on the web, addressing only some of the questions posed: * On gathering input - in talking with people who were postdocs or young faculty at the time of the last survey, many of them felt excluded from the process. Senior expertise is needed on the panels, certainly, but a cohort of young people should be on every panel. They of course will be the ones who have to live with the consequences, good and bad, of the report. Also, the power structure of astronomy clusters around large departments and major facilities, but a majority of astronomers work at small institutions - they must be suitably represented on all panels. A broad constituency like this will point out that investment in people and training is just as important as investment in facilities. * While astronomy is driven by technological progress, a strategic document like the Decadal Survey should adhere to a scientific framework, and pull in the best techniques available to answer fundamental questions. This is an easy call. I think the Education and Outreach aspects of the survey - whatever they end up being called - will be among the most important parts of the report. As practitioners of a "non-essential" science in a highly constrained budget landscape, we must show very clearly what we bring to education, scientific literacy, and the inspiration of the citizenry by our efforts to understand the universe. * To ignore unfinished business or rapidly bloating projects from the last report would be irresponsible and counterproductive. Unless, of course, the community as a whole has decided to change emphasis and wishes to withdraw support from a previously-favored project. Ten years is an eon in politics and budgeting so a mid-course adjustment mechanism is clearly needed. And on the issue of prioritization across boundaries, astronomers spend much of their time with their sub-field or wavelength hats on, lobbying for specific facilities or capabilities. This is the only time everything is on the table, so absolutely the report should make priorities across all the traditional categories. Chris Impey University Distinguished Professor Steward Observatory University of Arizona Back to the Top
Kevin Covey, Marcel Agueros, and Anil Seth, received on August 30, 2007
	Dear board members of the Astronomy Decadal Survey, We would like to give our answers to some of the questions posted at the NRC website about the next Astronomy Decadal Survey. 1. How should the Survey Committee and Panels effectively gather input from entire community? * Include early career representatives -- Scientists currently in graduate school or post-doctoral positions will play a critical role in astronomy in the next decade. To reflect this, we think it would be useful to include a few early career scientists on each panel to speak to the interests of these groups as the survey develops. * Include researchers at small institutions and community colleges -- Many astronomers are employed at institutions that have modest research budgets, while the makeup of the last decadal survey committee was composed mainly of astronomers from R1 institutions. Scientists at small institutions may have somewhat different perspectives concerning the structure of large astronomy projects -- for instance, they may favor funding survey projects with widely accessible databases rather than single-user facilities with high oversubscription rates and long proprietary periods. As the committee strives to address the needs of the US astronomical community, it will be helpful to ensure that the views of astronomers at smaller institutions are well represented on the panels. 2. Should the Survey Panels be organized around scientific area, or around investigative technique? * Organize by scientific technique (with one exception noted below) -- This will allow the different subfields to define where the most promising areas for new discoveries lie, and what new facilities are required to enable these discoveries. The relative priority for each of these new facilities can then be determined by identifying which facilities will enable broad progress across many scientific areas. * Dedicate a panel to investigating workforce issues -- The decadal survey plays an important role in guiding the actions of the major funding agencies (NSF, NASA, DOE). These agencies in turn fund, and therefore shape, a large portion of the astronomy workforce. We believe the astronomy community would benefit greatly from a careful and explicit consideration of the workforce in the context of the decadal survey. A decadal survey workforce panel should be charged with determining how science policy and funding models at the national level can be used to encourage the development of an effective, inclusive, and sustainable scientific workforce. More specifically, the panel should assess the affects of current grant and project funding on the training and employment of astronomers and develop recommendations on how to best create a workforce that will achieve the scientific goals of the decadal survey. To appoint a panel to consider these issues, Astro2010 could contact some relevant AAS committees (the Committee on Employment, the Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy, and the Committee on the Status of Minorities) for advice concerning potential panel members. Thank you for taking the time to consider these thoughts. Please don't hesitate to contact us if there is any way we can assist the committee in its mission. Sincerely, Kevin R. Covey Spitzer Fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Marcel Agueros NSF Astronomy & Astrophysics Fellow Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory Anil Seth CfA Postdoctoral Fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Back to the Top
Bob Krekorian, received on August 4, 2007
	To: Astronomy and Astrophysics 2010 Decadal Survey From: Bob Krekorian - former NASA SETI researcher Lets get NASA interested in SETI again. The search for an extraterrestrial civilization is one of the most intellectually stimulating and potentially rewarding pursuits open to humanity. As we approach five decades since the 1959 groundbreaking paper by Giuseppe Cocoon and Philip Morrison, Searching for Interstellar Communications, much discussion has taken place on how to detect interstellar signals. In actual fact, very little systematic exploration has been performed. The Case for Extraterrestrial Beacons Many ideas have been put forward speculating on the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, their number in the galaxy and their longevity. For those civilizations that become technological and do not self destruct, it is reasonable to assume that some number reach long lifetimes and are still scientifically curious. An interstellar beacon, which has as its sole purpose, communication with other contemporary technological civilizations in the galaxy is quite plausible under these circumstances. What would be the motivation to construct such a beacon? Perhaps there is an altruistic code in the galaxy to preserve the history of all civilizations, past and present? In all likelihood, we would not be the first civilization that they have made contact with. What could they expect to learn from finding one more? They may know a lot and have great understanding of science but the Earth's civilization with its unique biology and history will be a new one for them to put into the larger context of life in the universe. Maybe they will ask for pictures and sounds from our culture? Maybe they will ask for detailed data on our solar system? This seems far more practicable and feasible than sending out an armada of spaceships to explore other star systems. In a way, we would be their interstellar space probes. There is another possibility in the quest to find an extraterrestrial technological civilization. Might we detect their internal communication signals (leakage), like our TV or radar? This is a difficult problem and probably beyond our current technological capabilities. Let twenty second century SETI researchers work on detecting leakage, should our efforts in this century prove fruitless Based on the above considerations, it is logical (logic flows from causality) to expect that the beacon civilization will make the detection problem for the contact as simple and straightforward as possible. Universality of the laws of physics and the logic of mathematics will govern their strategy to maximize the probability of detection. NASA and SETI My career with the NASA SETI project included 15 years working with Dr. Kent Callers, the leading expert in the world on SETI signal detection. I never did stop working on the detection problem. During the 1990's, I organized a team to construct a radio telescope dedicated to SETI research. The team included Professor Frank Drake. When I was with the NASA SETI project, one of the scientists told us that there really has not been a new idea with SETI in the last twenty years. Maybe this will all change? I have come up with new thinking in how the interstellar communication link would be achieved. Something has been overlooked. If my ideas are scientifically sound, it is quite possible to make a detection within a decade using existing telescopes and signal processing capabilities. The expectation is that the contact/acquisition signal will be an address (pointer), like in the C programming language. It will direct contacts to where the actual communication channel is located. Our astronomical capabilities might be insufficient to receive the text of the extraterrestrial transmission. The charter of NASA includes a statement, the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. Some of us who were with NASA for the Oct 12,1992 (500th anniversary of Columbus discovering the Americas) SETI inauguration remember the worldwide interest and excitement created by what the agency was doing. Can we not rekindle this exploration spirit with a new generation of Americans? Actually, NASA already has in place many of the resources needed to begin the search. The NASA SETI project was based on the 1977 NASA SP-419 report. See the conclusions from the report which are still valid today. Yahoo window [nasa sp-419] will get it. The 1993 congressional mandate to end United States funding for SETI is no longer in effect. Proposals for SETI are now being accepted by the NSF, but NASA is the proper federal agency to carry out the search. Back to the Top
William S. Smith, Jr., received on July 26, 2007
	I have just read some of the very thoughtful comments posted so far and I thought I would add my two cents worth. One of the principal questions you would like to address is better cost estimating.  I heartily endorse this.  I know there is a strong trend in community thinking that cost increases have been rooted in incompetence (not understanding how to develop cost estimates) and conspiracy (deliberately undercosting).  While there may be some of this, I believe the major reasons are simply not being able to predict the unpredictable.  I hope that we can undertake a serious lessons learned exercise to disentangle these factors. Assuming then that we can do a better job, this ends up to be only half the problem.  The other half is, what can the agencies realistically expect to fund?  This is a question agency managers must answer, but these answers are crucial.  For NASA there has been a real evolution in planning that now provides us with a long term budget horizon.  It is in a constant state of negotiation within NASA and between NASA and the OMB, but there has been reasonable proof that high quality ideas are recognized and can influence the budget process.  There is also a real recognition that the astronomy community has been able to prioritize and advance only the most important ideas.  I hope this perception can be borne out in the 2010 process. For NSF the situation is more complex.  Any major new project must pass through three hoops.  First, the Astronomy Division must be able to accommodate and fund design studies, secondly the project must pass through a protracted MREFC process, and finally there must be some recognition that the Astronomy Division can, in the end, accommodate the operations costs.  In reality, the decisionmaking will likely have to work in reverse.  That is, it should be known at the outset that there will be a division budget that can plausibly accommodate such operations costs at the time a project is ready.  Otherwise there will be little sense in funding design studies or advocating an MREFC new start. I dismiss at the outset that any project of the scale that typically emerges from a Decadal Survey can fit into a flat budget scenario which, unfortunately has been the de facto assumption within the NSF.  The NSF’s Senior Review clearly recognized this in their finding, “The scientific promise of the proposed new facilities is so compelling and of such broad interest and importance that there is a strong case for increasing the overall AST budget to execute as much of the science as possible.” There are three factors at the heart of any solution to this problem.  First, any viable NSF project should include significant partnering (private, interagency, and international) for, not only construction, but also for operations.  Second, the community must be willing to cooperate and collaborate in a redistribution of funds and projects that, in some cases, may entail giving up access to existing facilities.  This obviously requires a broad consensus and must be a carefully managed process in order to maintain the health of the community.  Thirdly there must be budget growth for the Astronomy Division itself.  A flat budget, as the Senior Review recognized, will not inspire much serious planning for new facilities. It is significant that the NSF itself stands out among ALL OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES as a high priority for future funding.  In the FY08 budget, a much overlooked fact (see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist05z2.xls) is that NSF is estimated to increase by around 7% per year from 2008 to 2012—far outstripping NASA or any other Federal agency budget.  If the next Administration pursues this track, and the Congress supports it, NSF funding will be 50% higher in 2012 than what we have today.  Yet, much of the community is unaware of this.  Why? Because this funding wedge has not been transformed into actual planning structures for the rest of the agency.  It is not a part of the Astronomy Division plan, nor any other NSF organization.  I hope that this situation can be addressed before the Decadal Survey’s work is finished. Finally, I would note that although each year for the last decade we have all learned to live with the hypothetical flat budget expectation, the Astronomy Division budget has indeed increased by a very respectable amount over the past decade.  However, beyond the arithmetic, it is clear that “directed appropriations” have played a major part of this increase.  No real planning can take place unless there are sufficient degrees of freedom to manage.  Thus, despite the frustration that has no doubt led to the directed appropriations, it would be far healthier to achieve a long term commitment to a reasonable increase that best addresses science priorities, including cutting edge new facilities.   William S. Smith, Jr. President Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy Back to the Top
Todd Boroson, received on July 5, 2007
	Dear BPA members: I served on the McKee-Taylor Decadal Survey as a member of the main committee and as vice-chair of the “O/IR from the ground” panel. I have a somewhat different view of the shortcomings of the last Survey, in part because I helped turn the crank to make the sausage. I understand that a large segment of the community feels that they were disconnected from the process and are unhappy with the outcome. I know that many of the panels held town meetings, some at the AAS; and that they solicited input broadly from individuals and groups – all of whom were urged to consult broadly in developing that input. Our panel received 31 white papers; some were requested and some were contributed. I do agree that the next survey has to make more of an effort to engage the community – including after the report is published - and incorporate community input in a more visible way into the recommendations to prevent the perception that they have not been consulted. However, I believe that the fundamental problem in how our field progresses lies primarily in what comes after the Survey report. Speaking only for the ground-based O/IR side, there is no mechanism to implement the initiatives of the Survey. There is no group constituted and empowered to provide a rational and defensible interpretation of the recommendations, and I believe this has resulted in (a) less progress than one might have hoped for, and (b) the criticism that the cost estimates were inaccurate and that the program was unrealistic. In my view, the projects that are currently called LSST and GSMT are not the projects that were proposed in the Survey. They are much larger and consequently, more expensive. A small fraction of this is due to better estimates; a large fraction is due to feature creep and the desire to address a broader suite of scientific goals. There have been competing projects for several of these initiatives. That is not a bad thing – however, they have gone so far from the recommendations that it is difficult to compare them to each other or to other initiatives. How should the Survey Committee and Panels effectively gather input from the entire community? Probably through multiple mechanisms – town meetings, web-based input forms, by asking groups to work together to develop white papers on specific subjects. And the work of keeping the community engaged does not end when the report is published; it has to continue through the decade with periodic community-wide discussions that have the potential to affect the implementation. Should the Survey Panels be organized around scientific area, or around investigative technique? Ultimately, investigative techniques are a necessary filter. There has to be a clear and logical program for groups to execute. However, it might be reasonable to do it in two phases: first the panel members assemble themselves into science- based groups and discuss the important scientific questions and the sorts of facilities needed, and then reassemble in the traditional way and try to rotate the matrix to come up with coherent programs. Should individuals from outside the field be members of the Survey Committee, and in what role? I don’t believe there is much value in this. The committee has to be of manageable size and many groups have to be represented. How can the next Survey Committee increase the accuracy of its cost estimates? As I stated above – for ground-based O/IR, I believe that the cost estimates were sufficiently accurate, but the projects that have emerged are much more ambitious. I would hate to see the Survey spend most of its time considering projects that are ready for construction – then it becomes too tactical and less strategic. How should the Survey Committee coordinate with astronomers and astrophysicists internationally? Each panel should address this separately, though it would not be a bad idea to let the relevant groups in other countries know that this is coming. For ground-based O/IR, I would expect some contact with top management from ESO certainly, and perhaps additional interaction with the UK and Japan. I also would expect specific information to be gathered from relevant projects – such as OWL (which was done last time). How can the Decadal Survey remain flexible as circumstances change throughout a decade? One approach is to maintain the Survey committee through the decade to update the recommendations and interpretation as conditions change. Such changes should involve new community discussion. Should the Decadal Survey’s recommendations include a prioritization across categories, e.g., space vs. ground, major vs. moderate, etc.? Space vs. ground is not that useful since the funds come from different sources. Size of project is more valuable since this involves tradeoffs within a given budget. Sincerely, Todd Boroson Back to the Top
Mark Giampapa, received on June 22, 2007
	The next Decadal Survey should include a discussion of astrophysical processes across a wide range of astrophysical environments, extending from, say, magnetic phenomena in the dynamic solar atmosphere to outbursts in BL Lac objects and bipolar outflows in protostellar objects, as well as a host of other phenomena. The Survey should then address how the proposed new facilities contribute in a combined fashion to the goal of achieving a new and deeper understanding of astrophysical processes in the universe. In this way, the Decadal Survey would convey to the community, funding agencies and the public the interrelatedness of the various science programs and facilities. Thus, the Survey would be perceived not just as a shopping list but as the manifestation of a unified approach by the community to similar fundamental issues across all the subfields of astrophysics. The inaccuracies of the cost estimates in the last Survey tended to discredit the entire process. Ideally, proposed facilities and projects for the next Decadal Survey should have the equivalent of "Phase A" cost estimates. Higher weight should be given in the rankings to projects that have accurate cost estimates. An independent panel that consists of project managers, engineers, and instrument builders should review the cost estimates of proposed facilities. It will not always be possible for new concepts or proposals for, say, new large-scale facilities, to have had the time or money to carry out a detailed cost estimate. A realistic error estimate or cost range should be quoted in these cases and the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the cost estimate taken into consideration in the final rankings. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input. Mark Giampapa Deputy Director National Solar Observatory Astronomer, NSO/NOAO Back to the Top
John Huchra, received on May 18, 2007
	Hi Folks, I've been slow to send in comments /thoughts because I wanted to think about some of the issues and take in more info from some of my colleagues. I think concerns about the effectiveness of the last survey make it imperative that we get this one right (or at least closer to optimal) and I offer these thoughts. Organization: Perhaps the biggest administrative question in peoples minds is whether this survey will be organized more along the lines of science than the previous A&A surveys. Initially I thought this was a no brainer and that the answer must be yes. Now, while I think the main thrust must be to identify the killer scientific opportunities, the survey will need to parse those into recommendations regarding real and proposed missions. There are several ways to do this, perhaps the best is to have the main panel or committee do such prioritization. Contact: A very major failing of the last survey was the degree of contact with the community and the relatively scant input as compared to the Bahcall survey of 1990. This left a majority of the astronomical community feeling disenfranchised --- something we saw in spades while holding town meetings for the Senior Review. We must do everything possible to broaden community contact, including more open/town meetings, panel and sub-panel hearings, and getting many more people to serve on the sub-panels. My recollection was that the 1990 Survey had nearly twice as many panel members as the 2000 Survey. That will definitely mean making the case for a large enough budget to do this right, both by bringing in new sponsors (DOE) and making a more effective case to NASA and NSF. My guess is that the latter won't be a problem given the difficulties with he last survey. Budgets: We cannot stress strongly enough full cost accounting, lifetime costs + contingency (40% on anything not past the equivalent of NASA phase A). Boy has that caused us grief. I would also add the concept of "building to budget." Several of the 2000 survey's projects have grown in scope not just because the cost estimates were low-balled but also because the proposers have grown the project (LSST is a clear example). In the same vein, the SR came to the realization that for very large NSF funded projects, even if they were built with non-federal dollars, we could not afford to operate them without closing all existing facilities. While divesting some makes sense, cutting off everything else, for, say, one very large ground-based telescope does not make sense in astronomy. Simon White's recent Astroph article makes a cogent case that we should be wary of going down the particle physics path of one large project. Operations costs and long range planning for facilities must be an integral part of the Survey's considerations. We were lucky that for most of the last 40-50 years we had budget growth larger than operations costs growth, but that changed about 10 years ago (read the 1995 OIR report from the CAA which attempted to fix our first mistake, no operations funding for Gemini), and is only getting worse. My numbers for science in general indicate that the inflation rate for the operation of scientific facilities is nearly twice that of the general CPI, so of ops budgets grow as the CPI or less, something has to give. Flexibility: I have also been worried that too many people, both in the community and in the agencies, took the last Survey's prioritzations too literally. The CAA is supposed to watch over that. Now we also have the AAAC with essentially the same job. But I'm not sure we got that right. I think the next report has to include recommendations on paths to manage at least small changes in priority driven by budgets, operations, technical readiness and new science opportunities, as neither of those committees is likely to be able to marshall the community input to do this as well as can be done by the main survey. Just a suggestion for including a tactical section. Enough for now. Take care, John Huchra Back to the Top
Bart Wakker, received on May 4, 2007
	Dear board members of the Astronomy Decadal Survey, I would like to give my inputs on some of the questions posted at the NRC website about the process of the next Astronomy Decadel Survey. 1) How should the AADS collect effective input from entire community? --------------------------------------------------------------------- In the previous Decadal Survey I found that there was very little actual opportunity for outsiders to give input. Occasionally a meeting was organized, but unless one is committed to spending money and time and unless one already knows what has been discussed, such one-day meetings at random places are not an effective way to get input from outside the committees. I never saw a way for me to give an opinion to actual items that were to be in the recommendations. My suggestion is to have the committees produce interim documents that present the current status of the discussion about priorities and such, and announce via a general e-mail list (such as the one the AAS uses) that such documents are available. Then scientists who are not on the inside in the committee world can keep track of progress and have the option of giving pertinent criticisms. It is already not clear to me how this particular round of input will have any effect. Will there be a reply to the community after these inputs have been distilled by the Committee? Or will there be a 'fait accompli' when in a year suddenly the subcommittee memberships are set and finished documents are produced? Another item that I think needs improvement is the determination of who will be on the panels. The selection of members appears to be a very closed process and as such does not end up reflecting some of the interests of the community. The process needs to be more transparent. At present I see no mechanism by which I could have real input. 2) Should the Committee/Panel structure be organized around scientific area, or around investigative technique? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion the organization should be by technique, maybe even by wavelength. It is clear that many scientific areas can use results from many techniques. Which scientific area should get top priority is often influenced by the biases of individuals. But any practical recommendations will boil down to suggestions for which instruments to build. 3) Should individuals from outside the field be members of the Committee or Panels, and in what role? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, committee members should not all be insiders. Experts from related areas should be included. 4) How can the survey remain flexible as circumstances change throughout a decade? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The results of the Decadal Survey should not be taken as gospel by the relevant funding organizations, such as NASA and NSF. One of the possibilities is that those organizations create a program that is not strongly bound by the Decadal Survey recommendations (or allow this within some existing programs). Such additional programs can then look at ideas as they come in, and judge them purely on relative merit, rather than also on their relevance to the Decadal Survey recommendations. In this way projects or research areas that did not have an advocate during the Decadal Survey process can still make progress. Or, if new important results appear that were not anticipated, a new instrument can be built even if it was not recommended by the Decadal Survey Committees. Regards, Bart Wakker Back to the Top
AURA Board of Directors, received on May 1, 2007
	C. Megan Urry and Charles L. Bennett Co-Chairs Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics Board on Physics and Astronomy National Academy of Sciences 500 Fifth St. NW Washington, D.C. 20001 April 30, 2007 Dear Meg and Chuck, AURA has followed closely the discussion over the approach and structure of the next Decadal Survey. We applaud the efforts of the CAA to open this process up to public input at an early stage. At the April 25-28th AURA Annual Meeting in Tucson, an in-depth discussion was held to hear the views of our Member Representatives and Board Members concerning the Decadal Survey. As you know, our membership is broadly representative of the community of UV/OIR and solar astronomers. One major consensus emerged from this discussion that we believe should be taken into account in structuring the Decadal review process. There was general recognition that the degree of progress in many of the initiatives from the 2000 Decadal Survey was such that the panel would consider whether they should be re-prioritized. We are certain that there will be many arguments for and against such a process for each project. However, one project merits special consideration. The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) has progressed well technically over the past several years and is currently held in the “readiness” phase within the MREFC process. As the first major astronomy project to be considered under the new MREFC process, its pace has been, to some extent, affected by the development of the new policies themselves. Currently, the project is awaiting final resolution and a record of decision regarding the Environmental Impact Statement. We believe that the ATST should proceed as rapidly as possible and should not be re-prioritized against new projects that might be proposed. The ATST is crucial to the development of ground based solar astronomy within the U.S. community and will be a vital component of international collaboration. In characterizing the role of ATST, the 2007 NSF Facilities Plan states that “As the first new large solar telescope constructed in nearly 30 years, and because of the new range of scientifically compelling questions that ATST can address, its construction is expected to rejuvenate the solar research community in U.S. universities. As a national facility, ATST would enable training of the next generation of solar physicists and instrument builders at the graduate and undergraduate levels. ATST is poised to become the world’s flagship facility for the study of solar activity.” The scientific goals for ATST remain valid and will not be addressed by any other facility. In addition, there has been a growing recognition over the past several years that ATST provides a valuable synergy with NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observer. In the 2007 report of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, a major conclusion was as follows: “The AAAC recommends that NSF move ATST quickly through the MREFC process to a New Start to take advantage of the scientific synergies that will arise from overlap with the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), to minimize both the carrying costs for AST of a project post-PDR and the impact on other major astronomy projects that are potential MREFC funding recipients, and to realize one of the goals of the Senior Review, namely the focus of activities on new, more powerful facilities.” Finally, the ATST is vital to the entire US national solar community as it will replace existing ground-based solar facilities. The Senior Review, in defining the base program for solar astronomy, stated: “Development of ATST is a key part of the current solar astronomy base program. The remainder of the SR’s recommendations in solar astronomy is predicated on ATST progressing in a timely manner through the MREFC process….The proposed solar program, centered on ATST, has broad and enthusiastic support throughout the solar community.” It is notable that in the AURA Members round table discussion, a wide variety of disciplines was represented by the participants. Indeed, only a small minority could be said to be solar astronomers. Yet there was an overwhelming consensus for the scientific value of ATST and the need to take advantage of the considerable effort and economic investment done so far. Therefore we strongly recommend that the CAA and the next Decadal Survey give ATST its strong support and retain the priority given to it by the last Decadal Survey. Sincerely, AURA Board of Directors Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy Back to the Top
Alan Whiting, received on May 1, 2007
	I have two points that pertain to the process of the next Decadal Survey: 1. The input of that large section of the US astronomical community that is found in the smaller colleges and universities is important, both as part of the community as a whole and as that section most involved in teaching astronomy to non-astronomers. At the same time, they are the ones with the least available time and funds to attend input sessions, at AAS meetings or anywhere else. The Survey Committee should therefore take active measures to seek out their input, going to where they are or at least contacting them specifically (that is, not as people included in some general call for input). The small-college community of astronomers has a disproportionate impact on non-astronomers. Surrounded as they are by people, teachers and students, from other fields, they have (so to speak) an enormous ratio of surface area to volume. It is by their personal attention, much more marked than in the large `Astronomy 101' courses at big schools, that our public learns what astronomy is and what astronomers are. Their input into how US astronomy money is allocated is vital. But by the same token they spend much more of their time and effort outside the astronomical community, rarely being able to go to specifically astronomical conferences or meetings, especially if they are seen as being only administrative or having an influence only on big projects far away. The Committe will have to be proactive to seek out their expert advice on education and outreach, as well as their professional opinion on the overall shape of US astronomy. It has been contended that those who receive the greater share of astronomy funding (that is, those who are involved in the big, named projects found in Decadal Survey reports) should by right have a greater voice in how it is spent; and so the smaller impact of small-college astronomers is as it should be. This is at best a mistaken attitude. It allows to most US astronomers very little input into the shape of the whole astronomical enterprise, discounting their judgment; and ignores the fact that the money spent by the community comes from outside, so that no astronomer really has a prior right to any part of it. At worst it can be seen (let me emphasize that I do not believe this) as a way to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. 2. The Decadal Survey sets out its recommendations in a priority list, with the most important at the top. This makes the funding process easy: buy the first thing, then the second, on down the list until the money runs out. But this is a simplistic way to work and ignores the dependences and synergies of the whole astronomical system; in fact it can be very inefficient. It would be much better, though more complicated, to set out combinations of projects to be done at various funding levels. To give a simplified example: suppose the projects to be funded consist only of optical telescopes, listed in order of diameter because of course a larger telescope is more capable and desirable: 20m, two 10m, four 5m, six 2m. If enough money is available for all, well and good. But there may be only enough for the 20m, or all the rest. In that case a strict priority would build just the biggest scope; but certainly building the other twelve would be more productive. To set out a more complicated way of prioritizing funding will be more difficult and no doubt entail much more argument among advocates for various projects. But it is necessary, I think, to avoid the danger of increasingly expensive and complicated projects completely unbalancing the US astronomy effort as a whole. Yours, Alan Whiting Back to the Top
Richard Larson, received on April 24, 2007
	Here are a few comments from my perspective as Yale's Member Representative to AURA, having been involved in discussions at both Yale and AURA about the 2000 Decadal Survey. At the 2006 AURA annual meeting where this topic was discussed, I reported the comments I had heard from some of my Yale Astronomy Department colleagues who had said in strong terms that much of the astronomical community had felt disenfranchised by the 2000 Decadal Survey and was very unhappy with it. There was a general feeling at the 2006 AURA annual meeting that the 2000 Decadal Survey had been badly flawed and had led to a fiscal train wreck which the Senior Review then had to try to fix up. Obviously we don't want another Decadal Survey that leaves a large part of the community feeling disenfranchised and that leads to a fiscal train wreck. Since AURA's job is really observatory management rather than policy-making, it has been a consumer rather than a producer of policy documents and has looked to the Decadal Surveys for direction. I had had some reservations about 2000 Decadal Survey, but my reservations received no ear and had no impact on any AURA discussions. We were just told that the Decadal Survey had given AURA its marching orders or "blueprint" and that we had to follow it. At the most recent AURA annual meeting in April 2007, there was discussion of how AURA might in the future provide more useful input to the Decadal Survey process, perhaps by facilitating community input through workshops, and there are ongoing discussions on this subject. Personally, I think the idea that some all-knowing and wise committee can produce a blueprint for all of US astronomy during the next decade is nonsense, and we have to get out of that mode of thinking. The 2000 Decadal Survey was at fault in this respect because it did in fact present itself as a carefully engineered blueprint for US astronomy in the next decade, with the pompous title "Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium". Actually I thought it was an exercise in theorizing without much contact with reality. We do have to stay firmly grounded in reality, which dictates, among other things, that we can't take on a new 20-year or even 30-year megaproject every 10 years. And events can take unpredictable turns, as they did in 2001. I think the next Decadal Survey would be more useful if it were truly a survey and didn't try to be a plan or blueprint; a useful survey could review where US astronomy stands and what would be some promising directions or projects to pursue in the future, given various plausible and realistic scenarios, with options laid out and with desiderata given for choosing between them. A very similar idea that I have heard is that a more useful survey could provide a set of options and a "decision tree" with criteria for deciding among them, depending on factors that no decadal survey committee could be expected to fully evaluate or predict. For example, even properly costing big projects is a large and expensive exercise that is well beyond the expertise of any survey committee. Such a document could then provide useful input for planning and decision-making by those groups and organizations that actually make the plans and decisions. And we have to get used to thinking about what we can best do with our available finite resources, rather than what do we have to do to keep up with the Europeans. We should let the Europeans do what they can do best and concentrate on doing what we can do best. Richard B. Larson --------------------------- Richard B. Larson Yale Astronomy Department Back to the Top
Garth Illingworth, received on April 21, 2007
	Astronomy and Astrophysics 2010 Decadal Survey (AA2010) Some personal thoughts from the front-line… Garth Illingworth (AAAC Chair) During the last few years as Chair of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC) I have been utilizing the 2000 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, and the earlier Decadal Surveys. The AAAC has viewed its role as a tactical one, implementing the strategic framework set up by the NRC through the 2000 Decadal Survey and Quarks with the Cosmos. It is in this context that I have been working to move forward the astronomy and astrophysics program with the agencies (NSF/NASA/DOE), OMB/OSTP, and Congress. The insights from this “front-line” experience are summarized below as thoughts on the 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey (AA2010). In addition, I have interacted extensively with the CAA Co-Chairs (Meg Urry, Roger Blandford, Chuck Bennett), attended CAA, BPA and SSB meetings and interacted with NRC staff in discussions on AA2010. Some of these "front-line" insights were discussed in the 2007 AAAC report in the context of advising the agencies in their consideration of the next Decadal Survey. Many of the thoughts here are not new, or mine alone. They reflect many discussions in the AAAC, and with CAA and BPA members, but are a summary of my current thinking on the survey. Over the last year I have been giving talks about the status and progress on the Decadal Survey and highlighting the challenges we face. Some slides from those talks are included here as summaries and to exemplify the challenges. The discussion below falls into a number of topics. The ordering is not meant to indicate prioritization of their importance. All are issues that are under discussion and I expect that they are being addressed. They are not complete; a number of topics are not developed very extensively, including international participation and the scope of the study (i.e., which fields to include - though I lean towards being inclusive with the understanding that some fields may well not be the recipients of significant projects). AA2010 is essential for astronomy but not all areas can be "winners" in the current environment. The topics are: 1) SCIENCE FRAMEWORK 2) HOW TO INCLUDE SCIENCE 3) "CARRY-OVER" PROJECTS – THE NEED FOR A ZERO-BASED RE-ASSESSMENT 4) INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL MISSIONS/PROJECTS 5) SCIENCE BREADTH AND DOE INVOLVEMENT 6) NEW vs. OPERATING PROGRAM TRADEOFFS (“SENIOR REVIEW”) 7) CHAIR/LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE 8) RE-EVALUATION DURING THE DECADE 9) COST ESTIMATES 10) FEDERAL BUDGETS 11) HOW MANY FLAGSHIP MISSIONS/PROJECTS? 1) SCIENCE FRAMEWORK: It is clear from many discussions that Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos (CQC) enjoyed considerable visibility because of its very well-developed science discussion and focus on broad science questions. This resonated with policy and decision makers. Given the challenge involved in developing a realistic program in the next Decadal Survey, with current project and mission costs and likely budgets, my sense is that it will be important to highlight and utilize the science framework and goals more explicitly, rather as CQC did. Giving greater weight to a science framework has benefits for the development of a set of missions and projects in a quite constrained budget environment where the new projects are relatively expensive. Astronomy is a maturing field and the next steps are inherently expensive. While developing a science framework now seems rather self evident, the challenge is how to do it in a way that leads to a viable set of prioritized projects. In addition, it may well be impractical to give every community a “piece of the pie” in the AA2010 Survey, and we will ultimately need to resort to making even tougher choices than in then past – and these should be done on the basis of science priorities that have been established as part of the same overall process. 2) HOW TO INCLUDE SCIENCE: If the decision is made to give much greater weight to the science framework in AA2010, a challenge is how to do this and to end up with a set of missions and projects that is implementable over the