Assessment of a Plan for
U.S. Participation in Euclid

Committee on the Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid
Space Studies Board
Board on Physics and Astronomy
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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
Assessment of a Plan for   U.S. Participation in Euclid  Committee on the Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid Space Studies Board Board on Physics and Astronomy 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, N.W. 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 committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by Contract NNH06CE15B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-25384-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-25384-5 Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, 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
OTHER RECENT REPORTS OF THE SPACE STUDIES BOARD AND THE BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions (Space Studies Board [SSB], 2011) An Assessment of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory [prepublication] (Board on Physics and Astronomy [BPA], 2011) Panel Reports⎯New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (BPA and SSB, 2011) Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (SSB, 2011) Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey [prepublication] (BPA and SSB, 2011) Sharing the Adventure with the Public⎯The Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and Exploration: Summary of a Workshop (SSB, 2011) Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (SSB, 2011) Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research (Laboratory Assessments Board with SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2010) Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions (SSB, 2010) Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Final Report (SSB with ASEB, 2010) An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions (SSB, 2010) Forging the Future of Space Science: The Next 50 Years (SSB, 2010) Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2010) New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (BPA and SSB, 2010) Research at the Intersection of the Physical and Life Sciences (BPA, 2010) Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce (SSB, 2010) Selling the Nation’s Helium Reserve (BPA, 2010) Spectrum Management for Science in the 21st Century (BPA, 2010) America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions (SSB, 2009) Frontiers in Crystalline Matter: From Discovery to Technology (BPA, 2009) Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2009) A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program (SSB, 2009) Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration (SSB with ASEB, 2009) Scientific Assessment of High-Power Free-Electron Laser Technology (BPA, 2009) Limited copies of SSB reports are available Limited copies of BPA reports are available free of charge from free of charge from Space Studies Board Board on Physics and Astronomy National Research Council National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3477/ssb@nas.edu (202) 334- 3520/bpa@nas.edu www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html www.nationalacademies.org/bpa/bpa.html iv

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF A PLAN FOR U.S. PARTICIPATION IN EUCLID DAVID N. SPERGEL, Princeton University, Chair CHARLES ALCOCK, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics RACHEL BEAN, Cornell University CHARLES L. BENNETT, Johns Hopkins University ROMEEL DAVÉ, University of Arizona ALAN DRESSLER, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science DEBRA M. ELMEGREEN, Vassar College JOSHUA A. FRIEMAN, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory THOMAS A. PRINCE, California Institute of Technology MARCIA J. RIEKE, University of Arizona Staff DAVID LANG, Program Officer, Board on Physics and Astronomy, Co-Study Director CARYN JOY KNUTSEN, Associate Program Officer, Board on Physics and Astronomy, Co-Study Director LEWIS B. GROSWALD, Research Associate, Space Studies Board AMANDA R. THIBAULT, Research Associate, Space Studies Board CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Editor, Space Studies Board DIONNA WILLIAMS, Program Associate, Space Studies Board MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Space Studies Board DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy 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 MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate CHRISTINA O. SHIPMAN, Financial Officer SANDRA WILSON, Financial Assistant vi

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 STUART FREEDMAN, University of California, Berkeley 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 HOMER A. NEAL, University of Michigan MONICA OLVERA de la CRUZ, Northwestern University PAUL SCHECHTER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology BORIS SHRAIMAN, Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics MICHAEL S. TURNER, University of Chicago DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director JAMES LANCASTER, Associate Director DAVID LANG, Program Officer CARYN JOY KNUTSEN, Associate Program Officer TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface The formation of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on the Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid was requested by NASA at the November 9, 2011, meeting of the NRC’s Space Studies Board and the Board on Physics and Astronomy. The committee was tasked to: Determine whether a proposed NASA plan for a U.S. hardware contribution to the European Space Agency (ESA) Euclid mission, in exchange for U.S. membership on the Euclid Science Team and science data access, is a viable part of an overall strategy to pursue the science goals (dark energy measurements, exoplanet detection, and infrared survey science) of the New Worlds, New Horizons report’s top-ranked, large-scale, space-based priority: the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST). Owing to the mid-February deadline for NASA’s preliminary confirmation to the European Space Agency (ESA) of its interest in participating in the Euclid mission—with a view to a formal exchange of agreements in the Spring following interagency negotiations between NASA and ESA and the completion of the necessary U.S. interagency process to secure the U.S. government’s approval of the resulting agreement—the committee was assembled on an expedited schedule. The committee held its first and only meeting in Washington, D.C., on January 18-20, 2012, with the intention of completing and releasing its report by the end of January. The assembled committee comprised former members of the Committee for the Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics and other individuals with relevant scientific expertise, including some who served on the survey’s relevant panels. It was clear to the committee from the early stages of this study that it would be impossible to fulfill the task in determining whether a hardware contribution to Euclid is a viable part of an overall strategy to pursue the science goals of WFIRST without discussing both Euclid and WFIRST in detail. That realization was the core thrust behind how the agenda for its meeting was assembled. At that meeting the committee heard from experts and stakeholders from both Europe and the United States. 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 committee, (2) answered additional questions from the committee members, and (3) provided their own candid observations on relevant matters. In its deliberations, the committee made use not only of the testimony of these experts (see Appendix C), but also of the decadal survey report, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (NWNH), itself. The committee was also keenly aware that it was not charged to consider any alterations to the NWNH science priorities. The committee understood that the survey committee was aware of Euclid’s development and its science goals and that NWNH did not recommend Euclid as sufficient to satisfy the survey’s science priorities. The committee also understood that it was not charged to make recommendations to the European Space Agency. Neither was it charged to make any recommendations on the current NASA planning for the WFIRST mission. ix

OCR for page R1
On a personal note I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee who agreed on short notice to participate in this expedited process. This commitment required in some cases considerable disruption not only to their schedules on the days of the meeting but also in the days that followed as we assembled this report. I would also like to thank the staff of the Space Studies Board and the Board on Physics and Astronomy, most notably David Lang, Caryn Knutsen, and Dionna Williams, whose out-of-hours attention to this report made meeting the deadline possible. David N. Spergel, Chair Committee on the Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid x

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: David Bennett, University of Notre Dame, Roger Blandford, Stanford University, Adam Burrows, Princeton University, James Green, University of Colorado, Charlie Kennel, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and University of California, San Diego, Robert C. Kennicutt, Jr., University of Cambridge, U.K., Paddy Leahy, University of Manchester, U.K., Adam Riess, Space Telescope Science Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Michael S. Turner, University of Chicago, and C. Megan Urry, Yale University. 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 Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University. Appointed by the NRC, she 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 committee and the institution. xi

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 BACKGROUND 2 2 FINDINGS 4 The Proposed Euclid Mission, 4 The Proposed WFIRST Mission, 5 Comparison of WFIRST and Euclid Capabilities, 5 Previous NASA-ESA Collaborations, 9 Description of a Proposed Plan for a U.S. Contribution to the ESA Euclid Mission, 9 Programmatic Considerations, 10 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 NOTES 14 APPENDIXES A Statement of Task 19 B Meeting Agenda 20 C Meeting Presentations and Open Session Summaries 23 D Glossary 39 E Committee and Staff Biographical Information 42 xiii

OCR for page R1