Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

5 Evaluating and Balancing the Operational Portfolio
Pages 157-169

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 157...
... The importance of evaluating the operational mission/ facility portfolios on a regular basis was underscored by the 2000 and 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal surveys, and for NASA in a 2016 National Academies study of NASA mission extensions and the 1  National Science Foundation, 2020, FY2021 Budget Request to Congress, https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2021/pdf/ fy2021budget.pdf.
From page 158...
... The NASA Astrophysics Senior Review of Operating Missions has proven to be especially effective in setting funding priorities for operating missions (post-prime mission) , and for establishing criteria and a decision process for terminating missions.
From page 159...
... With many NSF facilities having lifetimes of 50+ years, and annual operations costs typically amounting to 4–7 percent of the original construction cost,3 the total lifetime cost of O&M can easily rival or exceed the original cost of construction. Moreover, the O&M costs are typically not carried by the directorate as a whole; instead they are passed down to an individual division.
From page 160...
... SOURCE: National Science Board, 2018, Study of Operations and Maintenance Costs for NSF Facilities, NSB-2018-17, Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, May 24. The main components of the current AST O&M portfolio are the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)
From page 161...
... Without such action, the community will be unable to do so because at current budget levels the anticipated facilities operations costs are not consistent with the program balance that ensures scientific productivity."7 As this committee assessed the ambitious set of proposed MREFC projects for the coming decade, it became clear that to implement any of them, and at the same time support continuation of the worldleading observatories such as Rubin, DKIST, ALMA, the VLA, and Gemini, requires a fundamental change in the budgets available for AST O&M. The major projects presented to this survey carry capital costs to the MREFC line ranging from hundreds of millions of dollars to approximately $2.5 billion, with corresponding operating costs, ranging from $20 million to $100 million per year (for any one facility, as estimated by the projects themselves)
From page 162...
... 5.1.2 Managing the NSF Facilities Portfolio As highlighted earlier, periodic reviews by NASA and NSF of their portfolios have proven to be effective mechanisms for maximizing science return and prioritizing budgets. The NASA Senior Review, which is undertaken every 3 years, has proven to be an extremely effective way to maintain high scientific productivity while managing costs.
From page 163...
... A few of many examples of these public-private instrumentation partnerships include the Las Cumbres Observatory, the ZTF, the PolarBear/Simons Array, the BICEP (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) and Keck Array, the Keck Cosmic Reionization Mapper, and the Keck Planet Finder.
From page 164...
... A number of MSIP projects did provide public access time -- for example, 40 Keck telescope nights over 4 years resulting from funding for the Keck Planet Finder, 60 public nights per year on the Center for High Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) array, 2,840 hours per year on the Las Cumbres Observatory global telescope network, and public-access targets of opportunity observations on ZTF, the latter two mainly for time-domain applications.
From page 165...
... investment in future facilities."9 Following both reports, NSF organized strategic planning committees to develop decadal roadmaps for optimizing the OIR system, and these led to significant advances, not least the coordination of public access to privately run facilities as described earlier. There is value in expanding this model beyond an ad hoc committee that issues a report once per decade toward a standing committee that would facilitate dialog between the diverse set of OIR stakeholder institutions and serve in the coordinating role envisaged above.
From page 166...
... While none of these new telescopes individually will replace all the capabilities of Arecibo, the combination of the radio cameras and ngVLA will be much more powerful for broadly advancing astrophysics in this frequency range. The survey steering committee assessed the impact of Arecibo's loss on the key science questions and program elements forwarded by the Astro2020 panels, while noting that these topics are largely outside the planetary and solar system science fields where Arecibo has had tremendous impact.
From page 167...
... F inding: There are future opportunities for continued utilization of the Arecibo site for radio astronomy, both through the ngVLA and mid-scale projects. In summary, Astro2020 took a broad view of all the capabilities needed to ensure a strong future in radio astronomy.
From page 168...
... This report also finds that senior review is the best mechanism for advising NASA about budgetary levels or advising when a mission should be terminated because its scientific return is not commensurate with the requisite investment. As such, decadal surveys do not typically weigh in on individual operating missions.
From page 169...
... There is significant down time in each year for necessary airplane maintenance. With a typical ~1,000 flight hours per year, and a relatively modest 60 percent of programs being completed, and 60 percent of these turning into peer-reviewed publications, only a few percent of total yearly calendar hours are turned into peer-reviewed science, an order of magnitude less than other astronomical observatories.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.