National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×

2
Discussion

The discussion in the sections below is derived from text in the 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey (Astro2010) report New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (NWNH),1 information conveyed to the panel at its November 7, 2010, meeting (see Appendixes A and B), and the panel’s own deliberations.

THE BALANCED PROGRAM RECOMMENDED IN ASTRO2010

New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics prioritized a set of missions and activities to advance the set of science priorities identified by the Astro2010 Science Frontier Panels. It is important to note that while the program was organized according to three science objectives—cosmic dawn, new worlds, and the physics of the universe—these science objectives themselves were not ranked.

Rather, a program was constructed to optimize science return and to ensure progress on a much broader front as well (see Table 2.1), while also fostering unanticipated discovery. Importantly, NWNH does not recommend any specific science goal as its top priority.

Moreover, NWNH prioritized missions and activities only within size categories and not across them. For example, in space, the recommended priority order for the large-scale activities were (1) the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST); (2) the Explorer program augmentation; (3) the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA); and (4) the International X-ray Observatory (IXO). At the medium scale, the priorities were (1) a New Worlds Technology Development program and (2) an Inflation Probe Technology Development program. NWNH does not state that large-scale activities should be done ahead of medium-scale activities, or that medium-scale activities should be done ahead of small-scale ones, nor that the top large-scale priority is the top overall priority of the program. NWNH also does not state that the list of priorities within a category necessarily means that the highest priority must be completed before the next priority begins.

A principle central to NWNH is the need for a balanced program, and thus small programs and core augmentations were also enumerated in NWNH.2 Some examples of such programs are “support of individual investigators, instrumentation, laboratory astrophysics, public access to privately operated telescopes, suborbital space missions, technology development, theoretical investigations, and collaboration on international projects.”3 These programs were not prioritized against medium or large activities.

______________

1 National Research Council (NRC), New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [prepublication version], The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010.

2 The need for a balanced program is also given in National Research Council, A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.

3 NRC, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [prepublication version], 2010, p. ES-2.

Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×

TABLE 2.1 Summary of 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey Science Frontiers Panels’ Findings

Panel Science Questions Area(s) of Unusual Discovery Potential
Cosmology and Fundamental Physics (CFP)

CFP 1    How did the universe begin?

Gravitational wave astronomy

CFP 2    Why is the universe accelerating?

CFP 3    What is dark matter?

CFP 4    What are the properties of neutrinos?

Galactic Neighborhood (GAN)

GAN 1  What are the flows of matter and energy in the circumgalactic medium?

Time-domain astronomy astrometry

GAN 2  What controls the mass-energy-chemical cycles within galaxies?

GAN 3  What is the fossil record of galaxy assembly from the first stars to the present?

GAN 4  What are the connections between dark and luminous matter?

Galaxies Across Cosmic Time (GCT)

GCT 1  How do cosmic structures form and evolve?

The epoch of reionization

GCT 2  How do baryons cycle in and out of galaxies, and what do they do while they are there?

GCT 3  How do black holes grow, radiate, and influence their surroundings?

GCT 4  What were the first objects to light up the universe, and when did they do it?

Planetary Systems and Star Formation (PSF)

PSF 1    How do stars form?

Identification and characterization of nearby habitable exoplanets

PSF 2    How do circumstellar disks evolve and form planetary systems?

PSF 3    How diverse are planetary systems?

PSF 4    Do habitable worlds exist around other stars, and can we identify the telltale signs of life on an exoplanet?

Stars and Stellar Evolution (SSE)

SSE 1    How do rotation and magnetic fields affect stars?

Time-domain surveys

SSE 2    What are the progenitors of Type Ia supernovas and how do they explode?

SSE 3    How do the lives of massive stars end?

SSE 4    What controls the mass, radius, and spin of compact stellar remnants?

SOURCE: National Research Council, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, p. 247.

Comparison of WFIRST and Euclid Capabilities and Science Goals

WFIRST is a 1.5-meter space telescope with a near-infrared (NIR) imager and a near-infrared spectrometer-camera. Its NIR detectors have some sensitivity in the visible red, but WFIRST is primarily an infrared platform. In conception, it combines three overarching goals: (1) to use the three primary

Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×

methods that have emerged to investigate dark energy and the validity of general relativity in describing cosmic acceleration (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations [BAO], weak lensing, and Type Ia supernovae);4 (2) to conduct a microlensing survey of exoplanets to derive the statistics of exoplanet system architectures; and (3) to provide a guest investigator mode to perform a deep-infrared survey of galaxies, quasars, and largescale structure and a complete survey of the galactic plane. The panel notes that a guest investigator mode is a substantial addition to these IR surveys and one that makes WFIRST a community facility with a large potential “discovery space.”5

By comparison, Euclid is a 1.2-meter space telescope with an emphasis on dark energy. It uses the BAO and weak lensing approaches and foregoes the use of Type Ia supernovae. The Euclid Assessment Study Report (Yellow Book) characterizes Euclid as a precision cosmology mission with goals of dark matter, dark energy, initial conditions, tests of gravity and sharpening cosmological parameters.6 Although Euclid has a NIR imaging capability and NIR spectroscopic capability for BAO studies, it is primarily an optical instrument with charge coupled devices with a pixel scale of 0.1 arcseconds. However, a byproduct of the Euclid mission will also be a NIR imaging and spectroscopic survey, and Euclid has a modest planet microlensing capability.

The multiple objectives of WFIRST—dark energy, microlensing planet search, infrared surveys, and the support of pointed observations proposed by guest investigators—are made possible by the large number of IR detectors and the fine resolution with which they sample the excellent images afforded from space. Euclid as currently envisioned has a smaller primary mirror, fewer IR arrays, and much coarser imaging scale in the infrared, so it cannot meet the NWNH science goals. The WFIRST design has a great advantage over the Euclid design in the microlensing search for planets because its high-resolution pixels are in the infrared, where the galactic bulge stars that will be monitored are intrinsically brighter and less affected by dust. As explained in NWNH, of the missions considered, only WFIRST can build up a deep statistical sample that will adequately complement the Kepler mission’s probe of Earth-sized planets close to their parent stars. For the program of dark energy research, another significant advantage of WFIRST is its capability for simultaneous spectroscopy and imaging.

The present panel notes that a keystone of the integrated plan advocated in NWNH is exploration of dark energy over the full redshift range with multiple techniques and facilities.7 Hence, it was concluded in NWNH that WFIRST and LSST would complement one another to improve overall accuracy and control systematics. The WFIRST and Euclid missions each have strengths and weaknesses with respect to the goals of a dark energy study, but NWNH concluded that the substantial advantages of the WFIRST configuration and its ability to address multiple priority science questions identified by the survey were decisive. Accordingly, NWNH ranked WFIRST highest in the large class of space-based activities.

SPECIFIC STATEMENTS IN NWNH CONCERNING EUCLID

The Astro2010 decadal survey committee was aware of the preliminary discussions on possible U.S. participation in Euclid that were inaugurated between NASA and ESA before NWNH was released, and it considered options for collaborations in its overall deliberations, albeit late in the process.8 There are three references in NWNH to possible U.S. collaboration on Euclid:9

______________

4 NRC, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [prepublication], 2010, pp. 1-5 and 7-17.

5 As noted by Roger Blandford at the November 7, 2010, meeting.

6 European Space Agency, Euclid: Mapping the Geometry of the Dark Universe—Assessment Study Report, ESA/SRE(2009)2, Paris, France, December 2009.

7 As noted by Roger Blandford at the November 7, 2010, meeting.

8 It is important to note that the Euclid mission was not proposed to the Program Prioritization Panels nor did it go through the cost, risk, and technical evaluation process.

9 NRC, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [prepublication], 2010.

Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×

• The European Space Agency (ESA) is considering an M-class proposal, called Euclid, with related goals. Collaboration on a combined mission with the United States playing a leading role should be considered so long as the committee’s recommended science program is preserved and overall cost savings result. (p. 1-6)

• Euclid is a European mission concept aimed at cosmology and dark energy, which is competing for one of two M(edium)-class launch slots, with a decision expected in late 2011 and launches scheduled for 2018 and 2019.10 The overlap in goals and scope between the proposed U.S. and European missions is significant, and there is potentially a grand partnering arrangement involving NASA, DOE, and ESA if the expanded scientific priorities set by Astro2010 for such a mission can be aligned among the partners, and assuming that the arrangement is consistent with the United States playing a clear leadership role. (p. 3-14)

• There have been discussions between the U.S. agencies and ESA about mounting a joint mission, which could be a positive development if it leads to timely execution of a program that fully supports all of the key science goals of WFIRST (planet microlensing, dark energy science, general investigations) and leads to savings overall. It is expected that the United States will play a leading role in this top-priority mission. (p. 7-18)

As is clear from the quotes above, NWNH looked favorably on international participation with the Europeans on WFIRST/Euclid science, but only in the context of (1) “a clear leadership role” for the United States and (2) “a [timely] program that fully supports all of the key science goals of WFIRST (planet microlensing, dark energy science, general investigations) and leads to savings overall,” as articulated above.

SPECIFIC STATEMENTS IN NWNH ON LARGE MISSION OVERRUNS

In the most restricted budget scenario considered by the Astro2010 decadal survey committee, NWNH stated as follows:11

In the event that insufficient funds are available to carry out the recommended program, the first priority is to develop, launch, and operate WFIRST, and to implement the Explorer program and core research program recommended augmentations.…(p. 7-40)

Even under such constrained circumstances, NWNH insisted on maintaining balance in the program and did not support sacrificing or significantly delaying any one element of the remaining components of its integrated plan for one large mission.

In addition, consistent with this theme and related to the current situation with the James Webb Space Telescope, NWNH clearly objected to the use of funds to address overruns in large and medium missions at the expense of core activities. One relevant paragraph in NWNH contains the following words:12

NASA’s core research programs, from theoretical studies to innovative technology development, are fundamental to mission development and essential for scientific progress…Maintaining these core activities has a high priority for the survey committee, and the budget allocations should not be allowed to decrease to address overruns in the costs of large and medium missions.” (p. 1-9)

______________

10 As heard from the European Space Agency at the November 7, 2010, meeting, there are two M-class mission launch opportunities within 2017-2018, and the current budget would allow an M-class mission launch in 2022, assuming the first large-class mission will be launched in 2020.

11 NRC, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [prepublication], 2010.

12 NRC, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [prepublication], 2010.

Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"2 Discussion." National Research Council. 2012. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13045.
×
Page 7
Next: 3 Conclusions »
Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey report, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (NWNH), outlines a scientifically exciting and programmatically integrated plan for both ground- and space-based astronomy and astrophysics in the 2012-2021 decade. However, late in the survey process, the budgetary outlook shifted downward considerably from the guidance that NASA had provided to the decadal survey. And since August 2010—when NWNH was released—the projections of funds available for new NASA Astrophysics initiatives has decreased even further because of the recently reported delay in the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2015 and the associated additional costs of at least $1.4 billion. These developments jeopardize the implementation of the carefully designed program of activities proposed in NWNH. In response to these circumstances, NASA has proposed that the United States consider a commitment to the European Space Agency (ESA) Euclid mission at a level of approximately 20 percent. This participation would be undertaken in addition to initiating the planning for the survey's highest-ranked, space-based, large-scale mission, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST).

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested that the National Research Council (NRC) convene a panel to consider whether NASA's Euclid proposal is consistent with achieving the priorities, goals, and recommendations, and with pursuing the science strategy, articulated in NWNH. The panel also investigated what impact such participation might have on the prospects for the timely realization of the WFIRST mission and other activities recommended by NWNH in view of the projected budgetary situation. The panel convened a workshop on November 7, 2010. The workshop presentations identified several tradeoffs among options: funding goals less likely versus more likely to be achieved in a time of restricted budgets; narrower versus broader scientific goals; and U.S.-only versus U.S.-ESA collaboration. The panel captured these tradeoffs in considering four primary options: Option A: Launch of WFIRST in the Decade 2012-2021; Option B: A Joint WFIRST/Euclid Mission; Option C: Commitment by NASA of 20 percent Investment in Euclid prior to the M-class decision; or Option D: No U.S. Financing of an Infrared Survey Mission This Decade.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!