|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 1
A Strateg,tþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Panel on Ground-Based Optical and
Infrared Astronomy was convened to determine
Astronomy occupies a special place in the whether the strategic balance of support by the
research portfolio of this country. NSF for all of optical and infrared (OIR)
Understanding the cosmos is one of the oldest astronomy should be adjusted as these giant new
intellectual goals of humanity, and the telescopes come on line. In particular, the panel
discoveries of astronomers clearly excite the was asked to articulate a new mission for
imagination of the public at large. From NOAO. In doing so, the panel had to address
primary schools to universities, from planetaria several complex questions. What is the best
to features in the media, astronomy offers role for NOAO in U.S. participation in the IGP?
numerous opportunities to improve the scientific How can the unique resources of both private
literacy of this nation, and astronomers are and NOAO facilities best be deployed? What
increasingly engaged in these educational priorities and strategies should be pursued,
activities. recognizing that NSF resources for OIR
Although for many people astronomy is a astronomy will probably be severely
clear example of one of the noblest of basic constrained?
research activities, it is often less recognized The panel believes that first priority must
that it can and does contribute to other national be given to the development of unique
goals. In particular, its research activities telescopes and instrumentation that advance
depend on and contribute to the applied technology and provide resources ofnational
development of sophisticated sensors, an scope. The Gemini telescopes, the large
essential enabling technology for many telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American
scientific fields and for the defense, medical, Observatory (CTIO), and the Advanced
and commercial sectors, Technologies and Instrumentation (ATI)
Modern astronomical facilities, and their program of the NSF's Division of Astronomical
sophisticated instrumentation, utilizing state-of- Sciences are clearly in this category.
the-art detectors, computing resources, and The panel finds that the case for increased
optical design, are expensive. Astronomers are OIR funding is strong within NSF for operating
fortunate that the Congress has authorized the the Gemini telescopes. However, it is necessary
construction of numerous major national to face the possibility that NSF funding of OIR
facilities. National ground-based astronomical astronomy will remain level in real dollars for
facilities are supported primarily by the some time. In this eventuality, the panel
National Science Foundation (NSF), both in the recommends that the proper instrumentation and
construction and operations phases. The two operation of the Gemini telescopes should have
8-meter telescopes of the international Gemini first priority. The panel also affirms the high
8-M Telescopes Project (IGP), in which the priority for the ATI program, which was
United States is a 50Yo partner, are currently recommended by the Astronomy and
under construction and will be completed by the Astrophysics Survey Committee (AASC) report
end of the decade. Considerable investment (The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and
(more than $250 M in the past decade) in large Astrophysics, National Academy Press,
telescopes has also been made with nonfederal TVashington, D.C., 199 l).
support, such that private observatories now The panel concludes that, with level
provide 81% ofthe total telescope area (and funding, major reductions in NOAO operations
760/o of the net diameter) available to U.S. would be required to meet the priorities stated
astronomers. Still, roughly half of U.S. above. In this constrained situation the Tucson
astronomers must rely entirely on the National scientific, administrative, and technical services
Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) for support would have to be scaled back very
access to telescopes, and nearly all rely on substantially. The level of support and
NOAO facilities for some aspects of their work. convenience offered to observers would have to
OCR for page 2
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
be reduced, and it is very likely that the smaller The panel recommends that a third strategy
telescopes at the Kitt Peak National Observatory be pursued, if further funds are available. In
(KPNO) would need to be closed or privatized. this strategy, the NSF astronomy budget would
Moreover, to reduce operations costs, the be supplemented by $l0l\{,iyear. The first
4-meter Kitt Peak telescope would have to be $5.5 M would be used as above for Gemini
operated with fewer instruments and used operations, and the balance would be used to
primarily for wide-field or near-infrared support an augmented program for facility
applications. In this case, a large number of instrumentation grants. Independent
astronomers whose only access to front-line observatories would be able to compete for
research tools is through NOAO telescopes these grants, which would be awarded strictly
would be unable to carry out their research and on the basis of scientific merit, but for which
U.S. science would suffer. cost sharing, in the form of open access to the
The panel has identified a strategy that astronomical community at large, would be a
might alleviate such problems and, at the same requirement. Such a program would enable full
time, better utilize the very large recent utilization of the enormous investment in both
expenditure by the private sector in the federal and nonfederal capital in OIR
construction ofnewtelescopes. Specifically, telescopes.
the panel recommends the initiation of a new The panel recognizes that when new, state-
program at a modest level within the NSF for of-the-art facilities are brought on line, older
instrumentation of the privately operated facilities must be retired. All of the options
telescopes in exchange for national access. In a outlined above include such painful downsizing.
constrained budgetary scenario, such funds In the draconian, flat-budget scenario, the
would, of necessity, come from existing NSF community would lose truly first-rate
OIR astronomy activities, including the existing instruments, but even in the optimal plan, major
ATI program. Even with this new plan, some economies in operations would still be required.
1200 observer nights would be lost,
approximately 40% of the present use by the
U.S. astronomy community atNOAO nighttime
facilities.
The above plan is the best that the panel
can envision under a flat-budget scenario. But
the panel finds the costs in human, educational,
and scientific terms to be unacceptably high. In
view of the major capital investments in the
Gemini telescopes and other major new
telescopes, the panel recommends a second
strategy, contingent on the availability of
additional funds. Specifically, the panel
recommends that $5.5 M/year be added to
the NSF astronomy budget for international
Gemini project operations. If this
recommendation is implemented along with the
proposed new instrumentation plan, it would
allow for far more efficient utilization of
existing telescopes. It would still be necessary
to slim down the Kitt Peak/Tucson operations,
but the consequences for the U.S. astronomy
community would not be as draconian as they
would be under the first strategy alone.
OCR for page 3
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
I. INTRODUCTION recommendations regarding NSO might have a
major impact on the national strategy for solar
The charge to the Panel on Ground-Based research. The OIR Panel did not have the
Optical and Infrared Astronomy was as follows: expertise or resources to evaluate this impact
properly. Therefore, the chairs of the
L Assess the context in which optical and Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics and
infrared astronomy will be pursued in the the OIR Panel discussed this issue with Hugh
coming decade, including existing and Van Horn of the NSF and reached the
planned instruments worldwide, NASA understanding that the OIR Panel was expected
missions, and likely technological not to make major recommendations regarding
developments. This examination must solar facilities, but only to point out the
consider the appropriate mission for the potential impact on solar physics that its
National Optical Astronomy Observatories recommendations for NOAO might have.
(NOAO); the most effective use of The strategy recommended is intended
National Science Foundation (NSF) funds generally to follow the recommendations of the
for support of facilities, instrument 1991 NRC report of the Astronomy and
development, and research; and how best to Astrophysics Survey Committee, The Decade of
structure our efforts to meet the challenges Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics
ofthe next decade. (hereafter, the AASC report; National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.), taking into account
2. Within this context, evaluate the mission of developments that have occurred since that
the NOAO and define its optimal role report was written.
(including both nighttime and solar The goal of the recommended strategy
activities) relative to that of other must be to achieve the best science from the
government facilities and optical and NSF investment in OIR astronomy. The total
infrared astronomy (OIR) university U.S. investment in astronomy includes the
observatories and research departments. capital investment and operating funds from
This evaluation will take into account both federal, state, and private sources that support
the research and educational roles ofthe the NOAO and many independent observatories
organizations. as well as the pool of talented astronomers who
use these facilities. These astronomers, most of
3. Suggest and evaluate alternative strategies whom teach at colleges and universities, not
designed to optimize progress in the field, only advance our knowledge of the universe and
taking into account the funding available the frontiers of technology required to gain this
from various federal and nonfederal knowledge, but also impart their knowledge and
sources and projections for the future. skills to a much greater number of students and
Give advice for strategies and priorities to the public.
within OIR astronomy in light of the As the panel describes in Sections II and
expectation that the NSF resources III, the infrastructure of OIR astronomy is
available for these programs will be complex and the scientific opportunities are
severely constrained in the coming decade. enoffnous. The major share of NSF funding of
OIR astronomy goes to the support of the
The OIR Panel was concerned about the NOAO, and the greatest current federal capital
reference to solar activities at NOAO in item 2 investment in OIR astronomy is the U.S. share
of the charge. Since the National Solar (50%) of the international Gemini telescopes
Observatories (NSO) at NOAO constitute a currently under construction. Therefore,
major part of the national infrastructure for solar strategic advice for NOAO and for NOAO's
physics, the panel was concerned that role in the international Gemini 8-M Telescopes
OCR for page 4
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optícal and Infrared Astronomy
Project (IGP) is a vital element of a national recommendation was for an infrared-optimized
strategy for OIR astronomy. These issues are 8-meter telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, and
addressed in Section IV. the third-priority recommendation was for a
Astronomy enjoys a unique place among Southern Hemisphere 8-meter telescope. (The
the physical sciences in that most of the OIR second priority was for the Millimeter Array.)
telescopes in the United States, including the The NSF responded to these recommendations
largest ones, were built and are operated with through a commitment to support 50% of the
private and state funds (see Section II). Thus, to international Gemini project. Two 8-meter
optimize the scientific return of the NSF Gemini telescopes are currently under
investment in OIR astronomy, it is necessary to construction; GeminiNorth (Plate 1) is
consider a strategy to provide instrumentation scheduled to be fully operational in 2000, and
for the independent observatories that own these Gemini South in 2003.
telescopes. A recommended strategy, which For moderate ground-based facilities, the
includes a provision for national access to these first-priority recommendation of the AASC
facilities, is presented in Section V. report was to develop adaptive optics facilities
The panel interpreted the reference to to reduce image distortion by atmospheric
severely constrained resources in item 3 of the turbulence. The NSF has responded to this
charge as a mandate to consider a scenario in recommendation by increasing substantially its
which the NSF annual funding of OIR funding of adaptive optics instrumentation.
astronomy would have zero growth for the This effort enjoys major contributions from the
remainder of the decade (in constant 1994 Department of Defense, which has undertaken
dollars). In this scenario, options would be very to declassiff its advanced technology for
limited, and drastic cuts would be necessary. adaptive optics, and from the Department of
However, in view of the major capital Energy. These agencies support very promising
investment in astronomy from both federal and programs in laser guide star technology at the
private sources, and substantial growth in the Air Force Phillips Laboratory and the Lawrence
number of astronomers, the panel considered Livermore National Laboratory, respectively.
scenarios in which the NSF base budget for OIR The potential scientific yield of adaptive optics
astronomy would be increased during the technology is enormous. Most of the work to
coming decade by an amount comparable to that develop and deploy this technology remains to
required to support Gemini operations. Such an be done; but, as the recent infrared images of
increase would enable the United States to the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with
realize fully the enorrnous scientific potential of Jupiter demonstrate, astronomers are already
the nation's telescopes. beginning to realize the benefits.
The AASC report's second-priority
recommendation for moderate ground-based
II.
THE STATUS OF OIR facilities was for the development of facilities
ASTRONOMY and technology for OIR interferometry. The
NSF has responded to this recommendation by
The AASC Report increasing its support of technology
development for this area. The twin 1O-meter
The panel first summarizes briefly the Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea, the first of
recommendations of the AASC report regarding which is now operational and the second of
OIR astronomy and the new developments that which is currently under construction, will
have occurred since that report was written. provide a major new facility for OIR
Substantial progress has been made toward interferometry.
achieving the AASC report's recommendations The AASC report's third-priority
for new facilities in OIR astronomy. For major recommendation for moderate ground-based
new ground-based facilities, the fi rst-priority
OCR for page 5
A Strategt þr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
facilities was for the construction of several new facilities without an increase in the net funding
4-meter-class telescopes, supported insofar as for astronomy. For example, sufficient funds
possible through a combination of federal, state, for the support of the infrastructure of other
and private funds. Substantial progress has been unique facilities, such as the National Radio
achieved toward this goal with the successful Astronomy Observatory's (NRAO) Very Long
completion of the 3.5-meter ARC telescope at Baseline Anay (VLBA) and Very Large Array
Apache Point, New Mexico, operated by a (VLA), have not materialized, and these
consortium ofstate and private institutions and instruments are currently operating in a less than
funded partially by the NSF, and the 3.S-meter optimal fashion.
Wisconsin-Indiana-Yale-NoAo (WIYN) A major problem for the NSF is to identifo
telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory the funds required to operate the U.S. share of
(KPNO), constructed and operated by a the IGP without encroaching on individual
consortium of private and state universities and research grants or impacting the operations of
the NOAO. These excellent telescopes are other important facilities. To do this in a
demonstrating the high scientific performance constrained budget scenario will require a
enabled by new technologies and the financial further focusing ofpriorities and resources at
efficiency of cost-sharing arrangements. More NOAO. While NOAO might achieve further
such telescopes are needed, however, most effi ciencies, certain telescope- instrument
urgently in the Southern Hemisphere. combinations would probably have to be closed
The AASC report's highest-priority if NOAO were required to absorb the full cost
recommendation for ground-based astronomy of the U.S. share of Gemini operations.
was not for new facilities, however. It was for Furthermore, NOAO's ability to develop new
the "strengthening ofthe infrastructure for instruments and telescopes and to meet the
research, that is, increased support for observing needs of the nation's astronomers
individual research grants and for the would be seriously impaired by such a
maintenance and refurbishment of existing requirement.
frontier equipment at the national observatories"
(pp. 12-13). In particular, the AASC report Current Resources for OIR Astronomy
recommended that "the NSF should include
The NSF Astronomy Budget
appropriate financial provision for operation of
Figure I illustrates the distribution of the
any new telescope in the plan for that facility,"
NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences 1994
and that "individual research grants be increased
funding (total is approximately $105 M,
to an adequate and stable fraction of the NSF's
excluding the $17 M construction costs of the
total operations budget for astronomy. In order
to gather and analyze the large amounts of data
IGP). The dark shaded area represents support
of radio astronomy, through the NRAO, the
that will become available with new
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center
instrumentation, to allow young researchers to
(NAIC) at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and the
take advantage ofthe new opportunities for
independent radio observatories. The hatched
discovery, and to restore support for theoretical
"other" portion ofthe grants program supports
astrophysics, the individual grants budget
primarily individual research grants in
should be increased by $10 million per year"
(pp. l3-la). theoretical and computational astrophysics and
in radio, solar, and planetary astronomy. (Of
The NSF Division of Astronomical
course, many individual investigations are also
Sciences has not yet been able to implement
supported by NSF through grants to
fully this paramount recommendation of the
observatories.) The white segment of Figure 1
AASC report. Moreover, the NSF will find it
represents support primarily for OIR astronomy,
impossible to address this recommendation or
including grants to individual investigators,
the remaining recommendations for new
development grants from the Advanced
OCR for page 6
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
Technologies and Instrumentation (ATI) the VLBA. Excluding VLBA construction, the
program, and the OIR part of NOAO. The black NRAO operating budget increased by about
segment of Figure 1 represents support of solar 23o/o,from $23.6 M in 1985 to $29.0 M in 1994.
astronomy through the NSO and the Global The NOAO budget, excluding Gemini
Oscillation Network Group (GONG) project. construction but including the GONG project,
decreased by about I0o/o,from $30.5 M in 1985
SOLAR 140.00
8.5 120.00
1 00.00
n GEMTNT CONST.
= 80.00 n NoAo
o
o 60.00 n ATr
otR 19.0
40.00 T GRANTS
20.00 m RADTO OBS.
0.00 lltr NArc
O@F@OOFNOS
@o@@@ooooo
oooooooooo Jü NRAO
YEAR
ATt8.2
NA|C 8.3
Figure 2. History of funding of NSF Division of
RADIO Astronomical Sciences from 1985 to 1994. Funding
oBS.7.2 primarily for radio astronomy, including NRAO,
OTHER NAIC, and the independent radio observatories, is
16.7
shown with a vertical shiped pattern, The NRAO
wedge includes funds for construction of the VLBA
but not the $75 M funding appropriated by Congress
Figure 1. Distribution of NSF Division of in 1989 for construction ofthe Green Bank telescope.
Astronomical Sciences 1994 funding ($M; total is The NAIC wedge includes funds for the Arecibo
approximately $105 M). telescope upgrade. Funding primarily for OIR
astronomy, including the ATI program, NOAO
Figure 2 shows the history of funding of (including solar astronomy), and Gemini
construction, is shown as white. Funding of grants to
astronomy research by the NSF in the decade
individual investigators, including grants for OIR
from 1985 to 1994. The net funding (in
astronomy but excluding grants for the ATI program
constant 1994 millions of dollars, corrected for
and the independent radio observatories, is shown as
inflation) decreased by about SYofrom 1985 to black.
1990, then increased to a maximum in 1992 of
about $118 M (excluding Gemini construction),
or about $130 M (including Gemini), and has to $27 .5 M in 1994. The funding of grants to
decreased thereafter. The funding of astronomy, individual investigators decreased by
as a fraction of the total NSF Mathematical and approximately 78%o, from $25.8 M in 1985 to
Physical Sciences Directorate budget, has $21.1 M in 1993, but was restored in 7994 to
decreased from 19.3Yo in 1984 to l7.2%o in $25.0 M, 3% less than the 1985 level. The two
1994, excluding major capital construction most significant qualitative changes are the
projects such as Gemini. Including them, the increase by a faetor 3.5 ofthe budget for the
fraction has decreased from 19.3%to 78.4o/o ATI program, from approximately $2.5 M in
during the same decade. 1985 to $8.7 M in 1994, and the construction
Some redistribution of funding within the budget for the international Gemini project.
NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences budget As noted by the AASC report, the shortage
is evident in Figure 2. The rapid decrease in the offunding to support research by individual
NRAO budget after 1992 may be attributed to investigators has become acute. This remains
the termination of funding for construction of true despite the fact that the NSF grants
OCR for page 7
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
program was restored in 1994 to approximately the cost to do so will rise to approximately
the 1985 level, because the number of $2.5 M by 2003. With level funding, NOAO
astronomers (measured either by the number of can support U.S. scientific access to Gemini
members of the American Astronomical Society only by reducing support of other activities that
or by the number of papers published in the it currently supports.
Astrophysical Journal and the Astronomical
Journal) has increased by approximately 40Yo
during the same decade' (Much of this growth
can be attributed to rapid growth of NASA
programs in space astrophysics.) Astronomy is
a growing science, and that has resulted in
keener competition, both for research grants and
for access to facilities at the national
observatories.
The Gemini Proiect
National Science Foundation funding for
ú@@oNt
the U.S. commitment of $88 M to support 50% àõoooo
õõãtooo
of the costs to build the two 8-meter Gemini ==-NNN
YEAR
telescopes (including an initial complement of
instruments) commenced in 1991. The U'S' Figure 3. U.S. funding of Gemini operations,
funding profile for Gemini construction is front- showing the U.S. 507o commitment for operations of
the Gemini telescopes through the IGP and also the
loaded, and the obligation will be met with the
cost estimated by NOAO for the USGPO to support
final U.S. payment of $41 M in 1995. But then,
U.S. scientific access.
the NSF is committed to pay the IGP 50% of the
Gemini operations costs, including instrument
upgrades. Figure 3 shows the NSF commitment NOAO
for 50o/o of IGP operations;the planned funding NOAO maintains two nighttime OIR sites:
profile begins in 1997 and will rise to a steady- Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo. Kitt Peak is a
state annual rate of $5'5 M by 2003, when reasonably dark site in an area with strong light
Gemini South becomes fully operational. The pollution laws. It has good seeing
need to identify the source of funds for characteristics, judging by the recent successes
international Gemini operations is the main of the Michigan-Dartmouth-Massachusetts
problem for NSF to solve, in order that U'S' Institute of Technology (MDM) 2.5-metet
OIR astronomy can realize the scientific yield telescope and the WIYN telescope' Cerro
of its investment in the two telescopes. Tololo has superb seeing characteristics,
The IGP is intended to support only the judging from the site survey work, although the
management, operations, facilities, and current telescopes do not deliver optimal
instrumentation development for the telescopes images. Cerro Tololo (see back cover) is a
themselves. Each participating nation is superb photometric site and very dark. Work on
expected to provide for the research needs ofits controlling light pollution has begun'
own astronomers who will use the Gemini
telescopes, including travel, data archiving and
distribution, and limited support for
instrumentation development' The NOAO is
planning to redirect its internal resources to
support these activities through the U'S. Gemini
Project Office (USGPO) and has estimated that
OCR for page 8
A Strategl,t for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
Table 1. NOAO Telescopes and Oversubscription Rates
Oversubscription Rate
Nights Scheduled by Nights
Telescope Focal Ratios Feb. 1994-Jan.1995
Feb. 1994-Jan. i995
(darVbright)
Kitt Peak National Observatory
4-m 2.7l8lls 278 3.012.0
3.5-m WIYN 6.9
2.7-m 7.slls 286 2.5/2.0
1.3-m l5 260 1.5
0.9-m 7 .5/t3.5 274 2.011.9
0.9-m Coudé Feed 31 258 1.2
0.6/0.9-m Schmidt 3.5 131 1.9
Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory
4-m 2.718/15 298 2.6/2.7
1.5-m 7.slt3.s/30 332 L412.4
1.0-m l0 223 0.9/2.1
0.9-m l3.5 307 t.6/t.0
0.6/0.9-m Schmidt 3.5 191 1.3
Table I lists the NOAO telescopes. At device (CCD) and at CTIO to less than that with
both sites, the premier 4-meter telescopes are a1024 x 7024 CCD). At CTIO the 1.0-meter
moderately wide-field (45 arc minutes) Ritchey- telescope is shared with Yale University and the
Chrétien reflectors. At Kitt Peak, an f/I5 0.6-meter telescope (dedicated to single-channel
secondary is used to optimize infrared photometry) is shared with Lowell Observatory.
capabilities and achieve commonality with the All the telescopes with apertures of 1 meter or
2.7- and 1.3-meter telescopes. The new less have very restricted instrumentation to
3.5-meter WIYN telescope on Kitt Peak will provide for efficient operation.
provide wide fields, up to 1 degree for the KPNO hosts approximately 600
multiobject spectrometry port and 0.5 degree for astronomer-visits per year for use of its
the WIYN port. The WIYN telescope has telescopes and CTIO approximately 200 per
already delivered images at the 0.4" level. The year. Table 1 lists the scheduling and
Schmidt telescopes at KPNO and Cerro Tololo oversubscription rates (nights requested/nights
Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) are scheduled) in 1994 for all NOAO telescopes. It
university-owned, with the observing time shows that in 1994 the smaller (2.1 m or less)
shared. They are both capable ofS-degree telescopes at KPNO provided some 1200
fields (but limited at the moment to 1 degree at observer-nights, or approximately 43%o of all
KPNO with a 2048 x 2048 charge-coupled NOAO observing time.
OCR for page 9
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
Helmut Abt's studies* on the cost- Oscillation Network Group (GONG). Figure 4b
effectiveness oftelescopes, the research done at shows the distribution that results when the
NOAO, and institutional productivities all show Tucson central services and AURA management
that NOAO has been scientifically productive. are prorated among the various functions they
Moreover, many major astronomical discoveries support, according to estimates provided by
have been made with NOAO telescopes. A few NOAO. In Figure 4b, the support of the image
of the many examples include the Infrared reduction and analysis facility (IRAF) project,
Tully-Fisher relationship, the Bootes Void, the the USGPO, and the WIYN telescope are shown
Lyman alpha forest, the first gravitational lens, separately. The chart shows that of the $27.1 M
and the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies. NOAO budget for 1993, $18.6 M was devoted
The competitive access to NOAO to support of nighttime OIR astronomy and
telescopes is crucial to the nation's science. The $8.5 M was devoted to solar astronomy.
panel examined NSF grant funding over the
three-year period from 1991 to 1993 to identifu
GONG 2.6
the dollar amounts that have gone to researchers
at institutions with guaranteed access to
telescopes with apertures of 2 meters and larger, NSOTSP 2.2
and those at institutions lacking such facilities. AUR,A 0.5
Omitting astrometric programs and solar
astronomy, 55% of the funding in OIR CENTRAL 4.3
observational research has gone to those with
"perennial access." The remaining 45Yo has
gone to those with "annual competitive access,"
and who presumably rely absolutely on NOAO Figure 4a. The 1993 NOAO funding distribution
for the capability to carry out some, most, or (in $M;total is $27.1M).
even all of their research. Since NOAO now
includes only 20Yo of the telescopes with
apertures of 2 meters or greater, the "annual"
category i s extremely competitive scientifically,
and NOAO has played a fundamental role in
enabling these scientists and their graduate
students to conduct their research.
Figure 4 shows more detailed breakdowns
of the NOAO budget in 1993, the most recent
year for which such data are available. Figure 4b. The 1993 NOAO budget distribution
Figure 4a represents funding explicitly with the Tucson central services and AURA
designated for support of Kitt Peak National management pro-rated among the various functions
Observatory ffPNO); Cerro Tololo Inter- they support, based on estimates provided by NOAO
American Observatory (CTIO); the U.S. Gemini (in $M;total is $27,1M).
Project Office (USGPO); general
administrative, scientific, and technical support Currently, NOAO has a net staff of 455
at the NOAO Tucson headquarters ("central") full-time equivalents (FTEs), of which 224 are
and the Association of Universities for Research located in the downtown Tucson headquarters,
in Astronomy,Inc. (AURA), management fee 48 are located at Kitt Peak, 4l at Sacramento
(vertically shaded); and support ofsolar Peak, and 142 at Cerro Tololo. Figure 5 shows
astronomy (horizontally shaded) through the the organizational distribution of the NOAO
National Solar Observatory at Sacramento Peak staff. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the
(NSO/SP) and Tucson (NSO/T) and the Global CTIO staff according to function, and Figure 7
OCR for page 10
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
shows the same distribution of the KPNO and Since that time, most of the original signatories
NOAO Tucson staff excluding NSO and have built their own Northern Hemisphere
GONG. The net NOAO staffing devoted to telescopes and so are much less dependent on
nighttime OIR astronomy has decreased by KPNO. In the meantime, departments of
about6Yo from 1989 to 1994. astronomy have grown in many universities that
were not original signatories to the AURA
agreement and that today do not have access to
199¡f NOAO Staffing: Totel = 455
independent observatories. Approxim ately 5 0o/o
of active OIR astronomers in the United States
have access to independent observatories, while
the remainingí}% must rely on NOAO for
access to telescopes.
CENTRAL 9,I
1994 KPNO + Tucson Stafflng: Totel = 220
I sctENrsrE 30
Figure 5. Distribution of NOAO staff by I ENGINÉERSAND
organization. PRoGRAI,¡MERS ,12
E AoMtNtsrRATrvE 22
ø CLERIC,AL 36
El TEGHNrcrANs 63
M MAINIËNANGE 37
1994 CTIO Stafilngi foþl = 142
Figure 7. Distribution of KPNO plus NOAO
! sctENTtsrs tõ
Tucson staff according to function (excluding
I ENG|NEERS aNo
PROGRAMMERS II NSO and GONG).
n ADM|NISTRAÍVE to
Ø cLERtcAL 26
E fËcHNtctaNs 33 Antarctic Programs
M MAINIENANCE 4I
The NSF also supports OIR astronomy
research at the South Pole through a grant of
$21 M for frve years from the Division of Polar
Figure 6. Distribution of CTIO staff according to Programs to the Center for Astrophysical
function. Research in Antarctica (CARA), a consortium
involving the Center for Astrophysics, Boston
To understand the diversity of OIR University, Carnegie Mellon University, the
facilities in the United States, it is important to University of Chicago, and the University of
consider the historical context in which the Colorado. This program supports SPIREX, a
national observatories were established. In the 60-centimeter infrared-optimized telescope;
early 1950s, the California astronomers had a ASTRO, a 1.7 -meter submillimeter telescope;
monopoly on facilities at excellent sites, with and COBRA, a}-meter telescope to measure the
the telescopes on Mt. Wilson, Mt. Palomar, and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave
Mt. Harnilton. To enable scientists from other background radiation.
institutions to carry out front-line research in
OIR astronomy, KPNO was founded in 1957 by
a consortium of universities that established
AURA to manage the operations for the NSF.
CTIO was founded by NSF and AURA in 1964
to provide access to Southern Hemisphere skies.
t0
OCR for page 11
A Strategtfor Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
NASA The Independent Observatories
The National Aeronautics and Space Table 2lists all current and planned
Administration Solar System Exploration telescopes with aperture greater than2.0 meters
Division supports the 3-meter Infrared that will be available to U.S. astronomers,
Telescope Facility (IRTF) on Mauna Kea and including both the "national" telescopes
has made a commitment to support part of the operated by NOAO and NASA and those
construction of the infrared-optimized Keck 2 telescopes operated by independent
telescope and future operations of the Keck observatories (including the Smithsonian
telescopes in return for 116 time on the two Astrophysical Observatory). It shows that the
Keck telescopes. The NASA telescope time telescopes at the independent observatories
will be available for national access through currently comprise roughly 8l% of the total
peer-reviewed competition. Observations collecting area (and 76%o of the net diameter) of
related to solar system studies and origins of such telescopes and that this situation will
planetary systems will have priorþ prevail for the foreseeable future. Even more
remarkable is the fact that the net area of all
major U.S. telescopes will increase by a factor
of 2.45 within a decade. The net capital
investment (not including operating expenses)
of private and state funds in telescopes that will
be built by the independent observatories
between 1985 and 2000 already exceeds $250 M
and will certainly exceed $300 M before the end
of the century.
*Abt, H. 1990. Publ. Aston. Soc. Pacific 92,249
(1980);97, 1050 (1985); 105,794 (1993).
ll
OCR for page 31
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
projects for certain staff. For the FY 1993 to an open competition and will bring their own
FY 1994 period there appeared to be an funding.
imbalance between the number of optical and In any case, an engineering and scientific
infrared projects, and there was no clear user core must exist within NOAO to, at a minimum,
pressure for some projects. The panel found no sustain the telescopes, the control systems, and
consistent records oftrue project costs and instruments, and to help set specifications and
personnel utilization within the Tucson office of see that they are met for facility-class
NOAO; this was particularly true of KPNO and instruments. Access to engineering time is
the Central Services at NOAO headquarters' crucial, whether the instrument is built inside or
More rigorous project management tools outside NOAO.
should be used to track costs and schedules of NOAO should concentrate resources for in-
NOAO departments. The panel recommends house instrument development to build on its
that a reorganizedNoAo make use of focused current strengths, with a focus on detectors,
teams of scientists and engineers to work on a controllers, and fibers. Telescopes need large
given project from conception to completion. formats in the optical and infrared, especially
(The panel found examples of this team given the clear needs for wide-field imaging.
approach in two new autonomous teams: the NOAO should play arole in Gemini
GONG group of NOAO and the engineering instrumentation develoPment.
group of the international Gemini project') Both KPNO and CTIO should, whenever
Focused teams will be particularly useful in appropriate, build their instruments in
collaborative instrumentation projects and collaboration with outside groups.
should further improve the accounting of project Looking toward the future, and to
costs. It would be helpful to identiff a maximize efficiency, NOAO should actively
"customer" for each new instrument before explore time trading and dedicated facility
development. instrument collaborations with private
Finally, the panel found evidence for a observatories that have new-technology
wide range of motivation among the service, telescopes. In the best scenario, time trading
engineering, and scientific staff. The newer could result in a net savings for the NSF, better
staff appeared overworked (very common in science, and reduced operations and
national laboratories in this transition period). maintenance costs.
Without reorganization, these problems will
only become worse in the Gemini era. Data Analysis Software
The most successful cases of NOAO has performed an extremelY
instrumentation development at NOAO can be important service in the development and
traced to good teamwork. Examples are the maintenance of the IRAF image data analysis
teams that developed the Hydra multifiber software system, which has become the most
spectrograph and the infrared cameras' The IGP widely used international standard for
engineering group operates very effectively in astronomical data analysis. However, IRAF
this way. NOAO might do well to emulate the was written in a fashion that makes it difficult
IGP's most successful teams in all the NOAO for outside groups to contribute original code;
engineering programs. the result is a product that is too dependent on
NOAO should consider contract the programming staff in Tucson' The IRAF
engineering firms as an alternative source of development did not take full advantage of the
engineering support to replace a fraction of its very considerable software expertise outside
present engineering and technical staff' Tucson. The panel encourages NOAO to
Supplemental engineering talent could be consider the development of the next generation
brought in as needed for Gemini instruments, of data analysis software, but this time to
for example, as those instruments will be bid in
27
OCR for page 32
A Strategt þr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
develop a more open system with stronger o Community user interface and service,
community participation in the project. including wide-band links
o Coordination of north-south and Gemini-
Observer Support KPNO-CTIO observing programs
o Targeted facility instrument production
Finally, in order to ensure that astronomers
who win time on NOAO telescopes have a
In a constrained budget environment, it is
minimum level of support necessary to carry out
impossible to maximize the opportunities for
their proposed science, the panel recommends
scientific leadership, both in the excellence of
that NSF give NOAO the responsibility and the
facilities and in the scientific productivity of
necessary funds to support travel, lodging, and
those facilities, without sacrificing something.
publication costs of observers who win time at
NOAO should not attempt to satisfy all the
NOAO facilities but lack other sources of
diverse observing requirements of the nation's
support.
astronomers. Nor should it attempt to serve the
maximum number of astronomers that its
Summary Recommendations for NOAO
facilities will bear. It is likely that in a
The panel repeats its main scientifically optimum strategy, the annual
recommendations for the future role of NOAO number of hands-on users of NOAO facilities
as the Gemini era approaches. These will decrease, and so the competition for time
recommendations are appropriate no matter on NOAO facilities will become even more
what the future budgets may be. severe. In the panel's view such a strategy for
NOAO's role is the only way to ensure that
Role of USGPO
astronomers who win time on NOAO
. U.S. user interface facilities will be using the best facilities in the
¡ Technical support for observing world, and to their best advantage.
o Liaison with IGP There may be a way, however, for all U.S.
¡ Performance optimization of Gemini astronomers to retain access to a broad spectrum
telescopes of observing options even as NOAO becomes
¡ Support for Gemini instrumentation more naffowly focused. For a possible means to
development achieve this, we turn to the independent
Role of CTIO observatories, discussed in the following
o Support for visitors at CTIO telescopes and
section.
Gemini South
r Performance optimization and operation of
Gemini South and telescopes on La Serena
V. INSTRUMENTATION AT
and Cerro Pachon INDEPENDENT OBSERVATORIES
o Development of some instruments
¡ Development of a new-technology 3- to Background
4-meter-class telescope As described in Section II, in "Current
Role of KPNO Resources for OIR Astronomy," the
independent observatories control more than
o Support of visitors at KPNO telescopes
¡ of three-fourths of the major telescope assets
Performance optimization and operation
available to U.S. astronomers, and this situation
several telescopes, especially WIYN
o will prevail for the foreseeable future. Thanks
Development of some instruments
to efforts by visionary astronomers and to the
Role of NOAO Tucson generosity of individuals, foundations, and state
¡ NOAOadministrativeheadquarters governments, U.S. astronomers have the
capacity to carry out far more research in OIR
28
OCR for page 33
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
astronomy than can be supported by NSF funds Astronomical Sciences to provide such a
alone. funding level, especially in view of the need for
New technologies offer opportunities to funding Gemini operations and modernizing the
increase the performance of all telescopes by telescopes at NOAO, and for NOAO to provide
huge factors at relatively modest cost compared a broad spectrum ofobserving options to the
to that of the telescopes themselves. The cost of nation's astronomers. Indeed, the panel cannot
these new instruments is not trivial, however. A realistically expect NOAO to meet these
major facility-class instrument, such as a demands in any case. As has been discussed, to
multiobject spectrograph, can cost several maintain scientific leadership within a
million dollars. As adaptive optics technology constrained budget, NOAO must narrow its
becomes more mature, the panel foresees a focus to those activities it can do best. If it does
widespread demand to implement this so, the panel must then ask: Is there another
technology to improve the performance of many way to provide some of the observing options
major telescopes. thatNOAO must curtail?
Many independent observatories lack the
financial resources to equip their telescopes A New Program for Instruments at
with instrumentation that will enable the Independent Observatories
telescopes to perform at their full potential. In
For the above reasons, the Panel
many instances, NSF investment in
recommends that the NSF Division of
instrumentation for independent observatories
Astronomical Sciences establish a new
will be the most cost-effective way to achieve program to provide instruments at
specific goals of OIR astronomy. A modest independent observatories that agree to
increment in NSF's astronomY provide national peer-reviewed access to
instrumentation budget is reasonable given their facilities in proportion to the funds
the $300 M ofstate and private capitalization provided.
for the new large telescoPes. The proposed facility (including possibly
To estimate the net cost of providing
an instrument, a mirror, and/or a telescope) must
modern instrumentation for telescopes at the
leverage substantial nonfederal investment,
independent observatories, one can assume
which may be in the form of existing telescopes
conservatively that every such telescope listed built with nonfederal funds and/or cost sharing
in Table I should be equipped with one new with nonfederal funds.
facility-class instrument every five years, and NSF funds must be used only to provide
that the average cost per instrument will be
capital equipment that will directly augment the
$2 M for telescopes of aperture 2 to 5 meters scientific performance of the telescope. The
and $5 M for telescopes ofaperture greater than panel does not recommend that NSF provide
5 meters. (This estimate is consistent with one
funds for operations or maintenance of
made by a group of observatory directors at a independent observatories. That would only
recent meeting.) The calculation yields a net
create a dangerous incentive for independent
funding rate of $12.4 Mlyear. Assuming that observatories to begin counting on the NSF to
the independent observatories share roughly make up for inadequate fiscal planning'
30% ofthe costs on average, a very strong This program should be distinguished from
scientific case exists for NSF to support the the ATI program. In such a program, it is oftcn
development of such instruments at a level of impossible to predict that a given effort will
about $9 M per year. Such a funding level yield a working device, which would probably
would vastly increase the scientific productivity not be suitable for general use in any case. In
of the nation's telescoPes. contrast, the instruments to be funded under the
In a constrained funding environment, it is program the panel recommends should have a
unrealistic for the NSF Division of reasonable expectation of providing important
29
OCR for page 34
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
and reliable observational capability, based on The panel suggests that NSF implement
prior successful experience with similar this program immediately, beginning with a
instruments. Of course, there is a continuum portion of existing funding in the present ATI
between ATI and the development of facility program and augmenting the program as rapidly
instruments. It would be inappropriate to rule as the availability of new funds permits. Since
out some level of innovation and risk in the the scheme for national access is untried, we
latter. Therefore, ongoing judgments will be need to gain some experience to know whether
required to determine whether the proposed it will in fact deliver excellent science at low
facility instrument meets the "reasonable cost. If the program can provide a broad and
expectation" criterion. A mechanism to make growing range of observing options to all
such judgments is suggested in the subsection astronomers through its provision for national
"Review of Proposals for Instrument access, the need for NOAO to provide such a
Development" below. range of options on its own facilities will
This program should be regarded as diminish. This scheme might create an
experimental, and its growth or termination environment in which all observatories can
should depend on scientific performance. realize cost savings by specializing their
Appropriate indicators of performance are facilities. The need for immediacy arises from
(l) the quality ofthe science produced, by the fact that there is a window of a few years
astronomers at the host institution and by before NSF must provide its full share of
external users, as a result of the program; (2) the Gemini operations costs. At that time, NSF and
number and quality of proposals to build new NOAO may have to make hard choices
instruments; and (3) the intensity and quality of regarding priorities for facilities. These choices
the competition for national access to the might be more optimal if they could be made on
facilities. the basis of some experience with the new
The panel believes that an appropriate level instrumentation program.
of NSF support for this program is about
$7 M/year. In fact, the NSF already supports Guidelines for National Access
the development of OIR instrumentation The goals ofthe national access provision
through its grants program, at a current level of are (1) to ensure that the program yields the best
about $7 Mlyear (Section II). Most (abottt75%) science, (2) to provide national access to a broad
of the NSF funding for OIR instrumentation has range of observing facilities, and (3) to realize
been devoted to the development ofadvanced the cost savings that may accrue from efficient
technologies, such as adaptive optics and modes of operation of independent
interferometry. Funding of these activities was observatories. To achieve these goals, the panel
highly recommended by the AASC repoft, and proposes the following guidelines.
this panel recommends that NSF continue to First, the conditions for national access
fund such programs aggressively with no strings must be flexible and responsive to the operating
attached. However, some (about 25%) of the constraints of each participating observatory.
ATI funding of OIR astronomy has been used to Any provisions requiring substantial changes in
build facility instruments and telescopes at operations will drive costs up and will be a
independent observatories. The panel deterrent for that observatory to participate in
recommends that this fraction, about $2 I\4/year the program. Therefore, in the first instance the
in 1993, be removed from the ATI program and participating observatory should propose its
augmented by approximately $5 M/year of new own provisions for national access so as to
funds in the NSF Division of Astronomical minimize the impact on costs. In an optimum
Sciences budget to meet the recommended system, the possible modes of national access
funding level of the new facility instrumentation might vary widely from one observatory to
program. another. For example, one observatory might
30
OCR for page 35
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
elect to provide only "data on demand," through independent observatory has built a modern
queue observing by its own staff. An 3.S-meter telescope, at a net capital cost of
observatory equipped for remote observing $ l5 M, and submits a proposal to NSF for
might provide that option. Another observatory funding to build an instrument costing $3 M.
might elect to provide hands-on training of Suppose that the observatory wishes to
students by its own staff, and another might discharge its obligation to provide national
support long-term projects by experienced access over a period of six years. Assuming that
astronomers. Of course, observatories could the telescope value decreases exponentially with
also choose to provide any combination of the a mean life of 20 years, the net depreciation of
services listed above (or others not listed). the telescope during the first six years would be
A mechanism is needed to ensure that the $3.9 M. Suppose further that the annual
aggregate of participating observatories will operating costs are $ I .5 M. Then, the net cost
meet national needs for a variety of observing to the observatory for the fìrst six years would
facilities and modes. It is important for each be $12.9 M. Then, a reasonable fraction of
participating observatory to understand whether telescope time to provide for national access
its provisions for national access are responsive would be ($3 M)/($tZ.q M) = 0.23, or about 85
to unfulfilled needs. Since NOAO already has nights per year for six years.
responsibility to provide national access, and As a second example, suppose that the
much experience in doing so, NOAO might Keck Observatory submits a proposal to NSF
undertake the responsibilities to provide this for $4 M to support in part the construction of a
information and work with proposing new instrument and wishes to discharge its
observatories toward an optimal balance of obligation for national access in four years.
options to the national community. The Then, assuming a capital investment of $80 M, a
proposing observatories would be able to mean life of 20 years, and operating costs of
discuss their provisions for national access with $6 M/year, a similar calculation yields 38 nights
NOAO before submitting their proposal, and per year ofnational access to Keck for four
perhaps modifu these provisions to be more years. However, in this case a further correction
responsive to unmet needs as appropriate. is warranted because the OIR astronomers at the
The primary goal of the program is to California Institute of Technology and the
enable excellent science, for both the University of California system already
astronomers at independent observatories and represent a significant fraction (about 15%) of
those without access to their own facilities. the active OIR astronomers nationwide. Since it
Therefore, the fraction of telescope time would be awkward for these astronomers to
provided for national access by participating apply for national access time on their own
observatories should be proportionate to the telescope, it would be appropriate to reduce the
NSF funds provided for new instrumentation, as national access time by a factor of 0.85, giving a
a fraction of the amortized capital cost of the final result of32 nights per year for four years.
nonfederal facilities. If the fraction were Additional examples of sharing are the
greater, that would remove the incentive for Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2MASS. These
many of the best independent observatories to are projects currently being undertaken by
participate and the program would not yield the university consortia to produce large-scale
best science. If less, the program would not photometric and spectroscopic surveys using
meet the national need for access to a broad special-purpose telescopes and instruments. In
spectrum of observing options. these examples, the national benefit is open
The principle of proportionate access and access to extraordinarily powerful and unique
how much national access time the program databases. Such arrangements would be
might deliver can be illustrated by two attractive to the owners of the telescopes if they
hypothetical examples. First, suppose that an were to individually reap more, not less, high-
31
OCR for page 36
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
quality data by participating in such a program. The proposed terms for national access,
That may be true in many cases, because including a plan for user support, would then
modern instruments with wide fields can often become part of the proposal to NSF for the new
provide major gains in telescope efficiency' For instrument. The proposal should then be judged
such a scheme to be acceptable to the on overall scientifrc merit, with criteria
community, it is also essential that new funding, including (l) the value of the science enabled
not repackaged funding, be used to initiate this for both the host observatory and national users,
program. (2) the scientific leverage provided by
An instrumentation program funded nonfederal cost sharing, and (3) the extent to
steadily at the recommended level of $7 Mlyeat which the proposed instrument meets an
would provide for national access the equivalent unfulfi lled scientific requirement.
of 85 nights per year of Keck time plus two Finally, the panel recommends that the
modern 3.S-meter telescopes full-time. (In fact, national access time provided by the
the aggregate program might yield a richer mix participating independent observatories be
of observing options.) This program could distributed through a national time allocation
significantly alleviate the current shortage of committee (TAC). Of course, before the TAC
access time to well-equipped telescopes. The meets, the independent observatories should
national access time provided would not be the screen proposals to use their facilities, just as
only scientific benefit of the program, however. NOAO does. The TAC will need to know
Additional scientific benefit would result from whether the proposals are suitable for that
the increased observing power that would facility and the reasons, technical and otherwise.
accrue to the independent observatories. A nationalTAC would have the following
These hypothetical examples are intended advantages: (1) it would ensure that the
not to serve as specific guidelines, but rather to national access time is granted on the basis of
illustrate the principles by which a reasonable scientific merit alone, as determined by
amount of national access might be calculated. competitive peer review; (2) astronomers could
The program will probably work best if propose to a single agency, according to a
participating observatories are free to propose standard format; (3) if a proposal were found to
any provisions that they see fit. For example, an be scientifically excellent but unsuitable for a
observatory may wish to propose a mix of given observatory, the TAC could attempt to
observing options on a variety ofits telescopes. identiff an alternative facility; and (4) a single
The panel believes that the review process TAC would probably be the most efficient
would provide sufficient incentive for procedure.
participating observatories to offer a reasonable The proposed program would have at least
amount of national access time on their one significant new advantage for the science
facilities. that could be carried out: it would greatly
Since each national access arrangement simplify and streamline programs of
would carry administrative and other costs, coordinated or synoptic observations. Many
there would be a threshold instrument cost such programs arise in OIR astronomy, from
below which the benefits of national access are studies of time-variable phenomena and
not sufficient to justify incurring these costs' periodicity searches, and in particular
This threshold might be in the range of $0'5 M observations eoordinated with spaceborne
to $1 M, depending on circumstances. A observatories (such as HST, ROSAT) for which
flexible mechanism for determining this increased longitude coverage is often crucial. A
threshold is suggested in the next subsection, national TAC could consider proposals for near-
"Review of Proposals for Instrument simultaneous or sequential use of several large
Development." telescopes that would otherwise be unlikely to
be scheduled separately for a single program.
32
OCR for page 37
A Strategyþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
This qualitatively new observing eapability as an ATI program item or a facility-class
might also justifu modest NASA support for instrument. If the latter, the committee must
such programs, or the instruments to carry them further decide whether the proposed instrument
out, as suggested in Section VI. meets the cost threshold for national access, and
whether the national access provisions are
Review of Proposals for Instrument equitable, according to the principles described
Development in "Guidelines for National Access" above. I
The panel also recommends that proposals
to NSF for grants for instrumentation VI.PROGRESS WITHIN A
development (both facility instruments and
CONSTRAINED BUDGET
advanced technology instruments) should be
selected on the basis ofan annual review by
Overview
an NSF jury committee. The panel believes
that such a process, details of which are Here the panel summarizes its major
described below, would be an effective recommendations and states priorities for NSF
mechanism for optimizing the scientific benefits funding of OIR astronomy. In doing so, the
of NSF funding of instrument development. panel is mindful of the uncertain prospects for
The jury committee would review and seek to growth of the NSF astronomy budget. The
coordinate instrumentation plans at NOAO, the panel is confident, however, that the enorrnous
independent observatories, and the recent increase in the power of ground-based
collaborations of outsiders with NOAO. OIR telescopes to enable major advances in our
There are two major advantages to a jury understanding of the universe, together with
review. First, it solves a problem raised by a major capital investment in new telescopes, both
number of correspondents-namely, that they national and private, makes a strong case for a
cannot make informed judgments when modest increase in the NSF astronomy budget'
reviewing a proposal for instrumentation The panel recommends a strategy in which
because they do not have a clear understanding NSF can, over the next several years, increase
of the global context. A given program may be its annual funding of OIR astronomy by
fine technically, but it is difficult to assess approximately $10 M in 1994 dollars' This
whether it is the scientifically most valuable one increase is essential to properly support Gemini,
relative to other alternatives. Second, and the instrumentation program for national and
perhaps most important, a jury review provides private observatories, and the continuation ofa
a powerful educational forum for all strong program at the existing NOAO facilities'
participants, which could accelerate technology With this increment, NSF funds would be
development and encourage cooperation where leveraged by the enormous nonfederal
appropriate. Indeed, the jury committee should investment in OIR facilities in the past decade,
search for economies of scale and opportunities allowing these new telescopes to reach their full
to avoid duplication of effort, especially in scientific potential while providing access for
instrument subsystems (e.g., controllers, ø// astronomers.
detector anays). Perhaps the greatest benefit of If such a boost to the NSF's astronomy
such a review committee would come not in the base budget is not possible, then first priority
judgment of the proposals at hand, but in the must go to support of the Gemini operations' If
guidance provided for future instrument no additional funding is added to the astronomy
development. base budget, then the initiation of Gemini
In addition to determining the scientific operations would have to come at the expense of
merits of the proposed instruments, the jury other existing national OIR facilities,
committee might be able to advise NSF whether particularly those that are the least unique. This
a given instrument proposal should be regarded allocation of resources would cause many
-tJ
OCR for page 38
A Strategtþr Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
excellent astronomers to become KPNO would find that their access to telescopes
disenfranchised, the field would suffer from the would be sharply curtailed and the competition
loss oftheir expertise, and educational much more intense than it is now. An example
opportunities for future generations would be of collateral damage under this scenario is that
diminished. science education at universities would suffer
Section IV above details recommendations because many professors would not be able to
for a new strategy for the operation of NOAO, maintain and engage students in active research
which the panel recommends regardless of the programs in OIR astronomy. Another major
budget future. The general recommendations casualty would be the loss of the internship
below are a restatement of many of these program for undergraduate and graduate
guiding priorities. students.
The panel's priorities for NOAO operations
No-Growth Scenario are clear:
If the NSF Division of Astronomical
L Geminioperations,
Sciences must operate under level funding, even
2. Continued operations at CTIO,
with the completion of the Gemini telescopes,
3. Operations of WIYN,
then there will be no alternative to a major
4. Continued operations of the 4-meter
cutback of operations and closing or privatizing
telescope at KPNO,
of existing facilities. Gemini will be a leading
5. Other unique instrumentation development at
scientific facility and is an international
Tucson, and
commitment that must be supported.
6. All otherNOAO operations.
In this no-growth scenario, NOAO must
absorb the full $8 M U.S. cost of the Gemini
In a very limited budget, the panel recommends
project (including both the $5.5 M for the U'S.
cutting from the bottom of this list while
share of IGP operations and the $2.5 M cost of
preserving the functions above. (Instrument
providing the resources for U.S. access to
upgrades are implied in priorities 1 to 4.)
Gemini).
Uniform cutting of all services now provided by
Given the unique access to the southern
NOAO is specifically not an acceptable option.
skies offered by CTIO, and the duplication of
The panel estimates that even in the worst
many of KPNO's capabilities in the independent
budget situation, NOAO would have sufficient
observatories in the Northern Hemisphere,
funds for priorities I to 4.
higher priority must be given to continued
The panel appreciates that substantial
operations at CTIO. At KPNO, the WIYN
savings cannot be made simply by closing small
telescope and limited operations of the 4-meter
telescopes, as these facilities cost very little to
telescope could continue, but probably all other
operate. Only by closing or drastically scaling
telescopes, as well as the bulk of the support
back an entire observatory can one expect to
operations in Tucson, would likely have to be
save funds of the magnitude required in a
closed. Whatever remained open at KPNO
flat-budget scenario. The panel's priority is to
would have to operate with a reduced support
keep the unique facilities open if at all possible,
staff, in a much less hand-holding mode of
and to concentrate cutbacks on the downtown
operation. The central services provided by
Tucson operations, while at the same time
NOAO to its three observatories, KPNO, CTiO,
reducing the personnel at KPNO to a minimum
and NSO, would effectively cease.
level. Such cutbacks would come at a scientific
NOAO would have to sharply restrict its price, such as the loss ofcapacity to
instrumentation program. Moreover, it would
immediately repair equipment that fails for one
be impossible for NOAO to build anY
reason or another. (Scheduling oflonger runs
new-technology telescopes, even through
and service observing can mitigate this loss,
partnerships. Astronomers who depend on
34
OCR for page 39
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
however.) In any case, it is better to have instrumentation program at the independent
limited service than no service at all. The panel observatories outlined above.
is further mindful that telescopes other than Although funding of IGP operations will
those owned by NOAO operate on Kitt Peak and not rise to the stationary level until 2003, the
also benefit from the infrastructure provided by panel recommends an immediate boost to the
NOAO. The panel, under even the worst budget NSF astronomy base budget to allow
scenario, does not recommend that KPNO be augmentation of the facilities instrumentation
closed. program outlined above. This would give the
Beyond stating these scientific priorities NSF time to judge the effectiveness of the
for NOAO, the panel does not attempt to program and to make mid-course coffections, if
provide a detailed road map or model for needed, wellbefore Gemini operations begin.
NOAO to reduce operations costs as required.
That is the proper responsibility of NOAO Modest Growth Scenario
management. In a modest growth scenario, the panel
With a truly flat budget, NSF would not be assumes that, by 2003, NSF will be able to
able to provide new funds for facility augment its annualbudget for OIR astronomy
instruments at independent observatories, but by $5.5 M to cover the U.S. obligation to the
would need to initiate the new program at a IGP, so that NOAO funding can remain level in
modest level within the existing budget of the constant dollars. Second, the panel assumes that
NSF instrumentation grants program. The NSF will be able to augment its annual budget
national access to independent observatories for facility instruments at independent
enabled by this funding level would not begin to observatories by $4.5 Mlyear, beginning almost
substitute for the loss of access at KPNO. immediately. Thus, the panel assumes that NSF
Finally, in this scenario, the sharp will be able to increase its net annual funding of
reductions in activity at KPNO and in the level OIR astronomy by approximately $10 M by
of support of engineering and technical services, 2003.
and the overall pressures on the NOAO budget,
With such an increase, the nation would
would be certain to have a negative impact on have a very healthy and productive
support for the scientific activities of the infrastructure for OIR astronomy. The panel
National Solar Observatories, believes that NOAO can ensure that the United
States will gain full scientific value from the
Minimal Growth Scenario Gemini telescopes and assert leadership in OIR
If NSF can increase its annual funding for astronomy. To do so, NOAO must further focus
OIR astronomy by part, but not all, of the $10 M its resources on Gemini science and other areas
recommended, the panel envisages continuing where it can excel. As discussed above, even in
fierce competition for resources between the this optimistic scenario NOAO cannot satisff all
independent observatories, which need the diverse needs of the nation's astronomers,
instrumentation funds, and NOAO, which must and competition for time on NOAO telescopes
provide the U.S. interface to Gemini, support its may become even more intense. However, with
observers, and strive to maintain scientific bold and frugal management, combined with
leadership in some areas. How should NSF external partnerships, NOAO will be able to
decide to distribute its limited funds in the face exert leadership in instrumentation and will
of such competition? have a good chance to replace some of its older
The first priority of any boost to the NSF telescopes with powerful, well-instrumented
astronomy base budget must go to Gemini new-technology telescopes.
operations, as discussed above. Any boost Great scientific leverage will result from
beyond the amount payable to IGP operations the augmented program to fund facility
would be available for the facility instruments for powerful new telescopes at
35
OCR for page 40
A Strategt for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy
independent observatories. Moreover, the Summary
national access time provided to astronomers The panel has outlined above three possible
through this program should mitigate the loss of
futures for OIR astronomy in the coming
observing options to astronomers who now
decade.
depend primarily on NOAO for access to
telescopes. These astronomers would enjoy a ¡ In the most pessimistic scenario the panel
net gain in observing time and options if this
recommends that the above listed cutbacks
program can be funded fullY.
be applied to current NOAO operations in
The strategy for growth recommended here
order to fund the Gemini operations.
is not lavish. The panel makes no
recommendations for major new facilities that . The panel strongly recommends that the
have not already been recommended by the
NSF increase the base funding of the
AASC report and, in fact, are already under Division of Astronomical Sciences in order
way. The $5.5 M cost to support operations of to cover the $5.5 M U.S. contribution to the
the IGP is modest given the $88 M capital international Gemini project operations
investment by NSF. With level funding
budget.
(excluding the IGP operations costs), NOAO
management will be challenged to take on the r In a modest growth scenario, the panel
new responsibility of the U.S. interface to recommends a $10 Mlyear increase to the
Gemini, to build new facilities, and to maintain astronomy base budget, which would
scientific leadership. The only new program support both the Gemini operations and the
recommended is the $4.8 M augmentation for new facilities instrumentation program for
instrumentation at independent observatories. the independent observatories.
That is conservative, too. The scientific
opportunities presented by the new telescopes at Without a boost to the NSF astronomy base
independent observatories could easily justif' a budget, the initiation of Gemini operations will
much greater investment bY NSF.
force the closure of productive NOAO facilities
now in operation. This would be a great shame
Support of Space Astronomy Missions and a waste of productive facilities and talent'
The national time allocation committee that The loss of national access to telescopes would
the panel recommends would enable also be harmful to U.S. higher education in
astronomers to carry out, often for the first time, science. Given the huge investment in space-
powerful coordinated and synoptic observing based facilities by NASA and the investment by
campaigns in support of space observations' nonfederal sources in other ground-based
Such programs are likely to spawn demand for telescopes, the recommended $10 M/year of
new instruments (e,g., common, if not similar, additional NSF support for OIR astronomy is a
imagers or polarimeters) on several telescopes very modest amount of money. Yet without it
so that data can be optimally matched. To neither the NASA investment in space facilities,
realizethese benefits, the panel recommends nor NSF's investment in Gemini, nor the
that NSF continue to work with NASA to investment of the private observatories in their
develop a coordinated strategy for support of new facilities will reach their full scientific
space astronomy missions by ground-based ÛIR potentiai.
telescopes. It would be appropriate for NASA
to support a share of costs for instrument
support and observer access in proportion to the
annual national use oftelescopes (national or
private) in support of space observations.
36
OCR for page 41
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Tha National Academy Press was created by the National
Academy of Sciences to publish the reports issued by the
Academí and by the Naäonal Academy of Engineering, the
Institute of Meilicine, and the National Reseaich Counci!, all
operating under the charter granted to the National Academy
o'f S.i..tõ.s by the Congress óf tne United States'
