June 10, 2001

TO: COMRAA

FROM: Jim Ulvestad, National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)

SUBJECT: Comments on merging NASA & NSF Astronomy Research

I am submitting these comments to the COMRAA for consideration during the committee’s discussions on the merging of NSF Astronomy Research with NASA Astronomy and Space Science Research. The summary of my detailed comments below is that it would be a bad idea to merge NSF and NASA astronomy-related research. Complementary approaches to research, and the complementary activities in space and on the ground, should remain separate in order to achieve the greatest efficiency in both organizations.

I have had the opportunity to experience the activities of NASA and NSF regarding research. I spent 12 years at JPL working on various projects including the Voyager Neptune encounter and Space radio astronomy, and have now spent 5 years at the NSF-funded NRAO, where I currently hold the position as deputy to the Assistant Director in charge of operation of the VLA and VLBA radio telescopes. At JPL, most of my work was focused on engineering activities that enable science, while the first priority at NRAO is to directly support scientific research. These differences, in my mind, highlight the differences between NASA and NSF, and the importance of keeping the two distinct.

As stated repeatedly by top management, NASA is a mission-oriented organization. NASA flies missions, and supports research related to those missions. But science is not the only aim of NASA’s activities include technology development, human space flight, and various other programs related to different civilian and military objectives. The NSF’s mission, on the other hand, is primarily the support of basic scientific research and related education initiatives. In astronomy, this results in the highest priority being given to individual research grants and to the facilities that enable scientific research to be done.

The benefit of NSF’s philosophy is that the research need not be tied to a particular instrument or mission, but is supported based on its quality and its scientific return. Indeed, the two evaluation criteria for NSF proposals are the scientific merit of a particular investigation and the broader impact on society, students, and other researchers. This contrasts with NASA’s mission-oriented approach. If the NSF’s Astronomy Division were merged into NASA, the contrast would be lost, and we would lose the benefit of diversity in research approaches and techniques. NSF could learn from NASA, for instance, in funding a portion of their grants for research directly related to NSF facilities (the mission-oriented approach). But the fact that the two organizations could learn from each other does not mean that they should become one in the area of astronomical research.

The annual budget of the NSF Astronomy Division is about $150 million, while the annual budget of NASA’s Office of Space Science exceeds $2 billion. It is very difficult to see how merging the two unequal offices could result in a sudden and significant gain in efficiency in the NSF portion of research. For an example of efficiency, consider the publication rate for NRAO telescopes. In recent years, the NSF operating budget for NRAO has been about $33 million/yr; combined with grants to individual investigators, the total NSF support of NRAO-related research is probably in the vicinity of $40 million. Yet the number of refereed papers from observations made with NRAO telescopes is about 250 annually, fairly comparable with the annual number of refereed papers from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations. Annual operating costs for the Space Telescope Science Institute, HST, and the HST grants program are surely far more than $40 million, implying that the NSF-sponsored research is at least as efficient as the NASA research.

For progress in astronomy, we require an organization in which ground-based activities are paramount. If merged with the much more expensive space-based activities, the valuable ground-based research supported by NSF is in danger of being lost in the much larger NASA budget. Just as the research approaches of NSF and NASA astronomy complement each other, so do the ground- and space-based instruments complement each other. For each to do the best job possible for the taxpayer, they must remain separate and be the highest priorities of their respective offices.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.