Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey Board on Physics and Astronomy Space Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract NNX08AN97G between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Contract AST-0743899 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation, and Contract DE-FG02-08ER41542 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-16373-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-16373-0 Copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
PANEL ON IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM NEW WORLDS, NEW HORIZONS DECADAL SURVEY ADAM S. BURROWS, Princeton University, Co-Chair CHARLES F. KENNEL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, Co-Chair ALAN DRESSLER, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science DEBRA M. ELMEGREEN, Vassar College FIONA A. HARRISON, California Institute of Technology LYNNE HILLENBRAND, California Institute of Technology STEVEN M. RITZ, University of California, Santa Cruz A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA) MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Space Studies Board (SSB) DAVID B. LANG, Study Director and Program Officer, BPA CARYN J. KNUTSEN, Associate Program Officer, BPA TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator, BPA BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate, BPA iv

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY ADAM S. BURROWS, Princeton University, Chair PHILIP H. BUCKSBAUM, Stanford University, Vice Chair RICCARDO BETTI, University of Rochester JAMES DRAKE, University of Maryland JAMES EISENSTEIN, California Institute of Technology DEBRA M. ELMEGREEN, Vassar College PAUL FLEURY, Yale University PETER F. GREEN, University of Michigan LAURA H. GREENE, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign MARTHA P. HAYNES, Cornell University JOSEPH HEZIR, EOP Group, Inc. MARK B. KETCHEN, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center JOSEPH LYKKEN, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory PIERRE MEYSTRE, University of Arizona HOMER A. NEAL, University of Michigan MONICA OLVERA de la CRUZ, Northwestern University JOSE N. ONUCHIC, University of California, San Diego LISA RANDALL, Harvard University MICHAEL S. TURNER, University of Chicago MICHAEL C.F. WIESCHER, University of Notre Dame Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director v

OCR for page R1
SPACE STUDIES BOARD CHARLES F. KENNEL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Chair JOHN KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired), Vice Chair MARK R. ABBOTT, Oregon State University STEVEN J. BATTEL, Battel Engineering YVONNE C. BRILL, Aerospace Consultant ELIZABETH R. CANTWELL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ANDREW B. CHRISTENSEN, Dixie State College and Aerospace Corporation ALAN DRESSLER, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution JACK D. FELLOWS, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research HEIDI B. HAMMEL, Space Science Institute FIONA A. HARRISON, California Institute of Technology ANTHONY C. JANETOS, University of Maryland JOAN JOHNSON-FREESE, Naval War College ROBERT P. LIN, University of California, Berkeley MOLLY K. MACAULEY, Resources for the Future JOHN F. MUSTARD, Brown University ROBERT T. PAPPALARDO, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology JAMES PAWELCZYK, Pennsylvania State University MARCIA J. RIEKE, University of Arizona DAVID N. SPERGEL, Princeton University WARREN M. WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research CLIFFORD M. WILL, Washington University THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN, University of Michigan Staff MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director vi

OCR for page R1
Preface The National Research Council (NRC) Panel on Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey was requested by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to address the following: With the overall goal of ensuring that the scientific priorities of New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (“the decadal survey program”) be pursued in as effective and timely a manner as possible, the NRC will organize a workshop that will feature invited presentations and discussion, to consider the implications of the following points: 1. The changes in the current budgetary and programmatic outlook for NASA’s astrophysics program from the scenarios outlined in the decadal survey report. 2. The current status of NASA’s implementation of the Wide-Field IR Survey Telescope (WFIRST) recommendation. 3. The current status of the ESA-Euclid mission, including any discussions of U.S. partnership in the mission. 4. The possible synergies and complementarities between the proposed NASA-WFIRST and ESA-Euclid science goals. In the context of the implications of these items and through a short report following the workshop, the panel will describe several strategic options for pursuing the science priorities of the decadal survey program. For each option the panel will outline the associated pros and cons from the perspective of achieving the decadal science goals in a timely manner. The assembled panel comprised former members of the Committee for Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics and other individuals involved in relevant aspects of the 2010 decadal survey process. All had an intimate knowledge of the survey itself and the rationales behind the strategy and various recommendations incorporated in the integrated plan outlined in the recently released report of the survey, New Worlds, New Horizons (NWNH). The panel invited to the open session of a meeting held on November 7, 2010, stakeholders from both Europe and the United States and from the relevant agencies (NASA, the European Space Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and OSTP) and the scientific community (see Appendix A). On short notice, these individuals graciously agreed to attend (either in person or remotely) and (1) made presentations in response to questions prepared in advance by the panel and the NRC, (2) answered additional questions from the panel members, and (3) provided their own candid observations on relevant matters. Having organized its workshop and considered the issues outlined in the charge, the panel concluded that its role was to review and assess the possibility of U.S. participation in ESA’s dark energy project Euclid in light of the strategy developed as a result of the Astro2010 survey process and recommended in NWNH. Specifically, the charge, as interpreted by the panel, was to investigate the potential impact of both (1) U.S. participation in the ESA Euclid project and (2) the current budgetary situation at NASA with respect to the prospects for realizing NWNH priorities. In particular, the panel interpreted its charge to be to assess whether a NASA commitment in the upcoming fiscal year 2012 budget request to participate in the Euclid project at a level of approximately 20 percent of Euclid’s costs would be consistent with achieving the priorities, goals, and recommendations articulated in NWNH and with pursuing the science strategy therein. The panel also investigated what impact such participation, as well as the current budgetary situation, might have on the prospects for the timely realization of the Wide- vii

OCR for page R1
Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) recommended by NWNH. During the panel’s deliberations, the report of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Independent Cost Review Panel (ICRP) was made public. The ICRP reported that the JWST can be launched no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2015 and at a minimum additional expense of $1.4 billion.1 As of the time the present panel’s report was completed, it had still not been made clear how or whether the JWST cost and schedule overrun would be addressed. This panel’s report should thus be read in the context of this new development and uncertainty, which nevertheless also serves to highlight the timely nature of this panel’s conclusions. In its deliberations, the panel made use not only of the testimony before it by external participants (see Appendixes A and B), but also of the decadal survey report NWNH itself. NWNH was the primary resource used by the panel in arriving at its conclusions, and the panel was careful not to contradict NWNH, either on particulars or on strategy, as it dissected the issues and pursued its charge. Adam S. Burrows, Co-Chair Charles F. Kennel, Co-Chair Panel on Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey 1 J. Casani et al., James Webb Space Telescope Independent Comprehensive Review Panel: Final Report, October 29, 2010 (publicly released on November 10, 2010). viii

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University, Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University, Robert C. Kennicutt, Jr., University of Cambridge, Jonathan I. Lunine, University of Arizona and University of Rome Tor Vergata, Christopher McKee, University of California, Berkeley, Marcia J. Rieke, University of Arizona, Paul L. Schechter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David N. Spergel, Princeton University, Scott D. Tremaine, Institute for Advanced Study, and Michael S. Turner, University of Chicago. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by William Press, University of Texas at Austin. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution. ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 DISCUSSION 4 The Balanced Program Recommended in Astro2010, 4 Specific Statements in NWNH Concerning Euclid, 6 Specific Statements in NWNH on Large Mission Overruns, 7 3 CONCLUSIONS 8 Option A: Launch of WFIRST in the Decade 2012-2021, 8 Option B: A Joint WFIRST/Euclid Mission, 9 Option C: Commitment by NASA of a 20 Percent Investment in Euclid Prior to the M-class Decision, 10 Option D: No U.S. Financing of an Infrared Survey Mission This Decade, 11 Final Remarks, 11 APPENDIXES A Agenda for the Workshop Held by the Panel on Implementing 14 Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey B Summary of the Workshop 16 xi

OCR for page R1