Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1970s: Volume 1: Report of the Astronomy Survey Committee (1972)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER SIX Implementation of the Recommendations THOUGHTS ON PLANNING lmroductiort We are at the end of a decade of outstanding suocas, marked by the revelation.s or sueh new and uncx:pcc:ted phenomena that -.·e must be reminded of the great age of Cameo and Newton. What history led to the patlem or Americ-an astronomy today, with its record of achievement? How can thi.s hisloryguide us either in improving the system or, indeed, in finding any developing weaknesses in the partun? Teehnical capability, funds, scientific- competence, and careful planning are not in themselves creative, nor do they lead to great achievements in science: they provide the background against which the human inlellectual drama is enacted. The conditions that made the past dec.a de so suceessful are complex; they include the ripeness of modem technology and espeelally electronics and computers. the development of reliable space vehicles, and the development of new types of detectors for all wavelengths. These factors have made it possible to t-um astronomy from an observational into an experimenCaJ science. We may now ask questions, and hope for significant answers. about a celestial object at essentially all wavelenaths. This all· wavelength capability is provided in pan by the successes of space, radio, and infrared astronomy. Combined with the rich tradition of pound· based optical astronomy, it has predue<d an explosion or eaperimental knowledge. Novel experiments are enriched by the traditional, and the tbeo~ical tools of atomic and nuclear physics, plasma physics, and solid· state physics are applied to objects of intrinsic beauty and strangeness, to 112 

Implementation of the Recommendations 113 analyze and to attempt to understand. In addition. we have developed a critical testing ground and stimulus for advanced technology, which must eventually find important practical applications. The all-wavelength capability provided by space astronomy is relatively expensive; yet the discoveries can be made no other way. Combined with observalion.s of the same objects at other wavelengths from the ground, the usefulness of space observations is greatly enhanced. A Lesson of the Decade-The Need for Balance In Chapter 4 we noted that the available funds per astronomer have dropped during this decade. But in spite of the leveling off of federal funding, we are in an enormously productive period. What historical background led to our present favorable condition? Optical astronomy has a long tradition in universities and observatories. founded by the states and individual philanthropic largess. After World War II, and especially following the completion of the privately endowed. 200-in. Hale telescope, it was obvious that we needed to develop large facilities available to a wide section of the growing astronomical com- munity. A consortium of universities. Associated Universities for Research in Astronomy tA URAI, established the Kiu Peak National Observatory IKPI<OI, funded by the National Science Foundation and open to all qualified users. It has two main functions: first. it provides facilities for those who do not have such equipment, and, second, it provides major instruments for work on forefront problems. In 1971. the Kitt Peak telescopes were used by astronomers from 33 small institutions, which presumably lacked any modern large instrument; astronomers from 24 larger university or observatory groups also used the telescopes. The observatory has served a large fraction of the astronomical centers of the country. with a broad geographic distribution. Few university or private facilities rival in size and diversity the K P~<o operation. and none can match it in terms of manpower, capital, and operating funds. For the last few years, the AURA group has been ac1ively engaged in construction of two large optical telescopes. ISO in. in aperture, one in Arizona and the other in Chile, together with sophisticated in- strumentation. The Chilean development provides an ucellent site also suitable for infrared observations and a needed U.S. facility in the southern hemisphere. Radio astronomy, too, had its origins in the universities, with a history beginning after World War II. A government research laboratory (the Naval Research Laboratory) and several university-based installations largely funded by the Department of Defense provided the backbone. The 

114 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYS ICS FO R THE 1970'1 ne<:d was felt for more generally available equipment. but in addition, new major instruments were desperately needed. The result was the founding of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory •~•Aoo by a university ooosonium. Associated Universities. Inc. IAUII. A national. rather than a single university-based, f3A:ility was required to serve all astrOnomers. Its large: instruments • ·ere considered to involve capital investments and support groups too large to be handled by a sinaJe university. ••Ao has unrivaled equipment in addition to its large permanent scientific and technical stall'. Recently, a seoond large radio facility, the Arecibo Ob- servatory. became a National Science Foundation center. with the same goals a.s NRAO of serving permanent staff and outside visitors. But If all of this is provided at national centers, why should there be any university-based observatories? The reasons arc compelling: the vitality of the U.S. astronomical elfort originated in the universities. Future progress would be restricted if insufficie nt s upport were given to such already developed centers. The majority or the talented astronomers arc located in the universities. They need adequate s upport if the Oow of young scien· tists. new scientific ideas, and technical innovations is to continue. For space projects, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration o•ASAl centers are essential to the enginee.-ing or much or the Oight hardware. Few oomplete satellite systems can be handled by university groups. and even rocket flights normally require specialized support for launch operations, pointing oontrOis, and telemetry. Nevertheless. rocket programs do provide an excellent opportunity for university scientists to obtain experience in space astrOnomy. to test new instruments, and to train graduate students. For the larger sateUite projeds. it is usually appropriate to have the engineers at a NASA center responsible for the basic spacecraft. In principle, all experiment packages are open on a oompetltlve basis to the entire scientific oommunity. including industrial laboratories, other government Jaboratories 1 NASA centers, and university- centered research groups. The statistical material in Chapter 4 shows the diversity or sources of funding ror various branches of astronomy, involving a considerable number of federal agencies. The National Science Foundation is desig- nated as the lead agency for support of ground-based astronomy. although its funds have been limited. Certain parts of astronomical research were close enough to problems of interest to the national defense that the Department of Defense bas been traditionally involved as a funding agency. NASA expends part of its basic resean:b funding on astronomy- related topics. The extraordinarily good health or astronomy in the last decade depended on a well-balanced mix between space and ground- based techniques. It involved transfer or the sophisticated experimental 

Implementation of the Recommendatlons 115 tcchniques of the physics laboratory into labocatories in space and on the ground. It has involved a growing young segment of the astronomical population in experiments using a remarkably wide range of te<:hnlques. It was funded in part by the state universities, by private universities and foundations, and by a considerable number of federal agencies. Balanee is the essential ingredient. Planning a Balanced Program for the 1970's We believe that a similar broad base of funding and a wide range of modes of operation holds the greatest promise for future accomplishments. One difficult quenion is the best balanoe between expenditures at national centers, or national observatories, as compared with those at smaller government laboratories, industrial laboratories and companies, or univenities and their observatories. Productivity has been high under very different management auspices. but there are important differences in management style and research rtyle, and no one pattern is likely to be successful. We recommend that for flight experiments. sponsored by NASA. the choice of payloads be based on scientific merit. technical competence. cost and compatibility with other experiments. without regard to the nature of the proposing institution. NASA should continue to seek the advice of outside scientists in choo<ing flight packages; these scientists should be further consulted if a final payload is to differ significantly from that originally recommended by them. An institution or eenter awarded a Oight experiment should be responsible for the design. fabrication. testing operation. and data analysis for that experiment. We urge that sufficient funds for data analysis be included in original planning, which has not always been the case. On all programmable observatories In space, significant amounts of observing time should he available to outside in· vestlgators with worthwhile proposals. For some yean, NASA supported a small number of research groups at individual universitits, which either had experiment packages in orbit, were analyzina data, or were preparing new equipment for future Oi&hts. The support for such univenity eenters has drastically decreased in recent years. The NASA traineeship program has been terminated. Sinee costs of experiment packages are high, university-centered groups in spaee astronomy depend almOS1 completely on federal funding. High com- petence in design. operat.ion, and interpretation of spaee experiments now exists in universities and organizations outside of NASA centers. It is critical that NASA recognize its responsibility to these outskje institutions as well as to iu own eenters. It should direct its available resources to 

116 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPIIYSICS FOR TilE 1970'• maintain the best g: oups in each field, including ground·based astronomy r in support of space missions. Turning to ground-based astronomy. largely funded by the National Science Foundation H<~St-L recent trends and our newly recommended program raise questions about the possibility of maintaining the properly balanced effort. which we feel to be the most efficient mode of operation. The very large new res<arch facilities funded by lh< NSF hav< been based at the national optical and rad•o observatoriC'S, and recently at the Arec:ibo radio observatory: recent large optical telescopes at universities are the 107-in. (T<xas). 90-in. (Arizona). and 88-in. (Hawaii). (The Texas and Hawaii instruments were largely supported by •••• .) Obligations for major research facilities and equipment at universities have averaged only I percent of th< ••• astronomy budget in the last four fiscal y<ars. as compared with 6 perc<nt in the previous fou r yurs (see Cbapt<r 4). Basic research grants to astronomy groups in univenities., which are the essential life blood of unh·<rsity-cent<red res<arch. hav< been only about 2S percent of the budgets of the national obS<rvatori<S. Astronom<rs at smaller institutions. without lheir own facilities. are dependent on, and grateful to. the national obs<rvatori<S for providing generally utilizable faeiliti<S; but. without local support by res<arch grants, the health of the wide community isthreat<ned and th< usefulness of th< e<nters reduced. Of the large facilitieS recomm<nded in OUr n<W program, some, but not all, arc likely to be considered as part of the program for the national observatories. The national observatori<S can remain a central pan of the national elfon in ground-based astronomy. without automatically processing each new instrument. Th< policy qu<Stions that must be considered in a.llocating resources are (I) What size or cost must a facility reach to be viewed as the responsibility of the national observatori<S? (2) Where can new auxiliary instruments (sensors, electronic devices, Tv. and data-handling systems) and unique, even if expensive, types of new instruments best be developed? (3) How can we b""1 enhance interaction between all groups to stimulate each other to the highest lev<l of efficiency and economy? These qu<Stions may be answered differently i.n individual cases. Th<re is no obvious cutoff in siu or oost beyond which a single institution might not compete efficiently in design, construction, and use of a new device. The largest optical tel<Seope is privately owned and operated, but, cl<arly, any major instrum<nt largely funded by public monies must be available for a proper fraction of its time to all qualified users, whatever their institutional affiliation. ·•Nationally available;' how<V<r, is not id<ntical with "nationally designed and op<rated," just as "privately owned" telescopes arc. in pan. nationally supported and availabl< to qualified outside users. OiJf<t'<nc<S in style have existed between the universiti<S and private 

lmplemmtotion of tire Reoommendotions 11 7 optical obi<Mtories and the natlonal centers. At the fonncr, lona-duratlon progranu baoe been carried oot involving mended periods for ob- senation of objecu difficult to obsen-e. Many ofthe scientific pis for tht coming d~ad• w\11 Involve very faint objecu and require extended ob- set'Yatlonal procrams. This style of operation may thus become more common (for at least pan of tht available time) at the national ob- sti'Yatories. Another question of style concerns the reliability and sim- plidty of use of auxiliary equipment supplied to the often less-e~p<rienced users visiting Kitt Peak and Cen-o Tololo. This has placed different requirements on el~ronic equipment developed there from those im- posed on the one-of-a-kind. state-of-the-an equipment used or planned for at Lick, McDonald, Mount Wilson. and Palomar. Yet the abundant resources of the national obsei'Yatories have permitted Individual ex- perimentation w\th advanced devices by their permanent staff. and their telescopes have been ouHkiently Oexible to allow use by vlsltoro who brina their own advanced equipment. During a period when fundina does not increase rapidly. readjustments in tht program for basic, current suppon and construction of fKUities may be needed for the most efficient use of available funds. II fnailful interplay between the difl'erent styles of operation Is possible o nly if healthy operating budgets ealst at a variety of pl..,.._ Our studies emphasize larae facilities and the support of aood existlna larae groups. beeause of the difficulty of observing from SpKC and the groond the interesting objecu, which are most often the faintest. In this contnt. It lolnellicient for the total number of om all eroups to grow at the expense oft he larae facilities required by the scientific problems. Exlsling large centers can make available nationally, in a democratic manner, a proper fraction of their rime to outside visitoro. We also believe that larger Instruments than have hhheno been built at unlverohles with federal funds could well be maintained at univeroities in the future. The national centers and obsnvatorles provide opportunities for Jona proarams by their permanent staff. principal investigaton, and meritorious visitors. In addition, relatively small sums spent on travel vants. summer in- stitutes. and visiting appointments at large centers are ellicient, en- couraaina scienli6c =•tivity. It Is euy to advocate diveroity in styles of scientl6c resean:h and management, althoueh hard to implement in detail. Funds and fKilities should be put at places where there is the best possible manaaement and scientific talent. with a policy that Keommodates the diveroity in styles of both the best-establlohed scientins and the talented outsider>. All should have ample opponunity to display their talents and to use instruments as efficiently as possible. One quesllon proved difficult for the Committee to answer. It Involved 

118 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS FOR TilE 1970 's the possibility of international cost·shari.n& in major facilities con 4 stru<tion. Sevtral of us explon!d this privately with radio-asuooomy oi>Ktvatory di..,.,.ors and science planners from other countries. Since the world of astronomical researdJ divides fundamentally into two hemi>pheres, nonh and south. a fruitful opponunity for international cooperation arises where large facilities are to be built for both hemispheres. Our private con·oersations show that astronomers from other count,ries naturally favor international oooperation where U.S. technology is outstanding. One panicular area for special exploration is a millimeter- wave radio dish in the southern hemisphere; several coun•ries seemed strongly interested, and the British have funding for such a device. From Europe, where large centimeter-wave telescopes are built or planned, suggestions were made for exchange of observing time for use of the millimeter-wave radio telescope in the United States, when built. The high U.S. capability in receiver technology led to the recommendation, from our foreig11 colleagues, that the NRAO help by building receivers over the w"'c range of radio frequencies. A suggested long·ranae plan was an intcrnaciona.l radio-astronomy facility with European cooperation. similar to the CERN program for high-energy physics, for the I 'leO's. A number of European countries are building ISO. in. telescopes in the southern hemi>phere: unless a very·large~llecting·area, optical-array telescope becomes feasible. there is tilllc prospect or more than temporary e.~changes of facilities. An interesting possibility i1 international collaboration for the development of a new, dark slty. dry location in the nonhern hemisphere. Few possibilitits remain within the continental United St.ales; cooperative efl'ons with Mexican astronomers may be realistic and attractive. Some cooperation in space experiments ex-ists currently; the lead held by the United States has permitted other countries to use our spacecraft technology without facing independent developme nt com. Such ten· dencies can be encouraged for the future, a.lthough we have not explon!d them specifically. Programs for ultraviolet astronomy leading toward the large space telescope, however, are so large that international cooperation, and possibly cost-sharing. would seem highly desirable, even at an early stage. PHILOSOPHY OF PRIORITI ES Within our field of study, which was large, n considered a program substantially supported b1 the federal government, which w<: discuss in some detail in Chapter 4. The approximate figures for research and 

Implementation of the Recommendations 119 facilities are near S2JO million per year from NASA (of which nearly half is support overhead for NASA facilities). SJO million per year from the NSF, and SIO million per year from the DOD. The non federal budget (largely universities) lies near SJO million per year. The accumulated nonfederal capitalization is effectively larger than one would derive from the numbers we give, because it was provided at lower prices and involves university buildings and facilities of high replacement cost. Tire program outlined in Chapters 2 and 5 is in addition to current base level of suppon. We are not specific about individual rocket nights, research projects, or small facilities, and we hope that the level of support for these efforts will increase. In these competitive and quickly changing areas resides the current health of most of the astronomical community. The total spent on individual research projects from federal grant or contracts within the current program has been about level, maintaining a balance between terminations and new starts. New research areas and opportunities develop. and shifts of funding emphasis follow the ex- citement and promise of the science. Our recommendations do not consider in detail shifts of capital or research grants within the present funding level. Here, and in the pa.nel studies in Volume 2, we emphasize certain areas as promising for the next decade, thereby providing some guidance to funding agencies. What effect will the recommended program have on the current level of expenditure? Space One large effect will be on the NA SA astronomy program, where the High Energy Astronomical Observatory (Recommendation 4) will represent a virtually new effort and involve an estimated total cost of $380 million. Doubling the aircraft, balloon, and rocket program (Recommendation 6) would add $13 million per year to the NASA program; the solar satellites (~ecommendation 7) and ultraviolet program (Recommendation 9) are essentially continuations (or enlargements) of ongoing efforts. The net effect of the Committee's recommendations. ignoring year-to-year fluc- tuations, would be to increase the direct NASA astronomy program from SIJO million to $180 million per year and the total NASA contribution (including internal overhead) from $230 million to $280 million per year. Radio The Committee's recommendations in the area of radio astronomy call for an expenditure for capital equipment of $62 million for the Ve.ry Large Array (Recommendation 1), SlOmillion for a Large Millimeter-Wave Dish 

120 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS FOR nu; 1970's (Recommendalion 5), and $35 million for a Large Centimeter-Wave Dish (Recommendalion 10). To 1his musl be added for operating expenses 10 per«nt per year of the capilal costs, i.e., Sll million per year at the end of the decade when the three major facilities would be completed. The Committee also recommends an additional S2.S million per year for the construction of new university radio facilities. The magnitude of the program-$110 million in capital expenditure ($1 1 million per year over the coming decade) and a growth in support reaching 513.5 million per year-is a reflection of the fact that virtually none of the programs recommended for radio astronomy by the Whitford panel in 1964 has yet been implemented. Optical. ll!f'rared, Solar, and Theoretical In the area of optical astronomy, we strongly urge that SI.S million per year be expended for development and installation of electrooptical detectors and automation of the largest existing telescopes. We call for a capital expenditure of $5 million for an optical array, S25 million for a large optical array or single-mirror telescope. and SIS million for the construction of three intermediate-stud telescopes-one at a dark site, one for infrared observations (see below), and one to support the High Energy Astronomical Observatory (discussed above). The program thus involves SI.S million per year for upgrading existing instruments and a capital expenditure ofS4S million, i.e., an average of S4.5 million per year over the decade, together with operating expenses growing to S4.5 million per year at the end of the decade. The Committee's infrared program, in addition to the intermediate-sized telescope mentioned above, involves a number of programs entailing an additional $2 million per year for support of this discipline. The solar program calls for Sl million per year for improved ground-based facilities. The Committee recommends in- creased support for theoretical astrophysics amounting to an additional 53 million per year; it also calls for capital expenditures in dynamical astronomy amounting to S6.S million. Thus the Committee's recommendations in the area of ground-based astronomy involve capital expenditures of $160 million, or S16 million per year over the decade, and increased support and operating funds for new facilities growing to $25 miJiion per year by the end of the decade. Priorities and Alternatives The above program calls for a growth in the federal support for basic research in astronomy from $270 million per year to average S355 million 

Implementation ofth~ Recommendations 121 per year ovr.r the course of the next decade. a program that could be accomplished with a gr0'1'1h rate for funding averaging 5 1 percent pe-r /t year. During a time when funding levels tend to be declining in rut dollars. even so modest a growth rate might seem unrulislically high. Whal alternatives exist if funding does not grow this rapidly! The Comminee has anempted to deal with pan or this question by establishing priorities among the programs it reeommends. The first four programs, recommended for immediat.e funding, are ranked in order of importance. They comprise a group of higher·priority recommendations than che remaining seven, within which the order of listing is not signific.a nt. If funding is not immediately available for the inilialion of large capico1 programs, the Committee would recommend implementation of Its lower·cost programs of highest priority- increllSed support for university radio facilities together with possible initiation or the large millimcter·wave dish (which may be the lowest-.cost major radio facility); detector development and implementation for optic.al astronomy: in· c-reased support for infrared astronomy: and increased support for air· craft. rocket, and balloon astronomy. The funher question might "M:elJ arise as to the e.xun1 to which lhe program might be funded out or existing resou~. by omitting or c:ur· taU ina ponions of the current effort. let us e.xamine a bil m~ closely how c:urrent resourttt are utilized. or the $230 million per year that NASA devotes to basic resea:rch in astronomy, SIOO miiUon involves indirect suppor1 for NASA centers and management. This cannOt be repro-- gu.mmed to earry out new fiight efforts. The ..maining SIJO million maintains the night programs in solar and uJtrav•olet astronomy; air· planes. rockets, and balloons; astronomical e xperiments on certain in· terplanetary missions; and some ground· based programs. Since the High Energy Astronomical Observatory C eAOJ program iJ essentially a new H effort in this extremely important wavelength region, nny attempt to support this program out of funds already authoriud for current program$ would entail the virtual abandonment of entire areas of space science such as the solar or ultraviolet programs-programs that the Committee recommends be continued at or above the present level of etrort. The Committee places the highest priority on the ttEAO program but hopes it could be carried out "M;thout eliminatin& the other important space·aSlronomy programs. Since the R<:Ommendation for increased support for airplane. roc:ket, and balloon astronomy involves only 10 percent or the present dfon. it could possibly be implemented without a signi6canl increase in funding. It is clear that funding for the major new ground·based radio facilities recommended by the Committee. such as the Very Large Array <VLAI . also 

122 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS FOR THE 1970'1 cannot come from within the current budget. The total NSF budget for astronomy facilities and equipment amounted to only $4.4 million in fiscal year 1971; this amounts to S44 million over the next decade---wnslderably less than the S62 million estimate for the YLA alone. The NSF support for operations at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and the Arecibo Observatory amounted to only S8.5 million in fiscal year 1971; clearly, even drastic ~programming would not prnduce significant funds for new programs. The situation is even mo~ critical for current support of the national optical observatories. Support for the new national facilities (Kin Peak and Cerro Tololo) is just beginning, with two major telescopes being built. Support for auxiliary instrumentation will have to be increased within that current program. What about additional areas in the budget? The only other significant line Item In the NSF astronomy budget is the Basic Research Grants, amounting to $6.5 million in fiscal year 1971. This is one of the most important budget items-the life blond of university ~search in astronomy. It is already too smal.l to support current research needs; it makes no sense to reduce research support in order to construct new facilities. which could then not be used. The Committee believes that. in order to imp/f!ment to any JignifwanJ degrr.e ilS recommended progrtim, a modest but ntNenlteless real gro-...,lr in the federal support of astronomy amounting to some SYt percent JNT is o fondamtntol nteusity. Without such growth it wdl be virtually }'f'Gr impossible to carry out the program of exploration on whose th~hold astronomy now stands. Why do we feel now such an urgency in the need for major facilities and expanded research support? Astronomy has been in an explosive and happy situation of rapid discovery of unexpected objects that have required re-examination of our concepts of the nature or the universe and the forces within it. These discoveries have been made. however, with instruments designed. and largely constructed, before the 1964 Whitford report. The past few years have not seen a level of Investment in new facilities of the magnitude necessary to maintain this momentum. We fear that this lack of suppon will be ~fleeted in a diminishing scientific murn during the coming years; if, on the other ha.nd, new facilities are con· structed. the expectations for science are co~pondingly ~1. We must stress: that we li\te in a particularly fortunate time and place; modern technology and the aU·wavelength capability of space. radio, infra~. and optical techniques together provide us with powerful tools, within a science where major discoveries are still commonpl~. The imponance of radio astronomy for the detection of p~biological molecules and ultimately. perhaps, inteUigent life, suggests the need for 

lmp14*mNrlllfion of the R ecommendations 123 new funds for what may become a new science. Auxiliary electronic. television, and data-handling equipment for large telescopes bring us to an unprecedentedly high level of electrooptic technology. These large telescopes are needed to support the results found in space, by radio telescopes and by infrared. Without them, a much lower total scientific productivity can be expected in these newer fields. A number of our recommendations urge increase in the level of support of certain research areas. We concur with other studies recommending a doubling of the effort in space resean:h from ain:rafl, balloons, and rockets. The new discipline of infrared astronomy has proved very fruitful; its facilities and resean:h support must be enhanced to take advantage of both modem technology and the important scientific link the infrared provides between physical processes in the radio and optical regions. Theoretical astrophysics, whose tool is the large computer, is a relatively inexpensive subject that needs increased funds. Finally, we face tbe very expensive long-range program that would lead toward the large space telescope CLSTI. Ultraviole1 astronomy prior to the LST may be supported within HASA 's current budget with suitable reorientation. But the LST. the ultimate tool of ultraviolet and optical space astronomy, with man involved, may become a major component ofthe manned space program. Astronomy bas provided leader1hip for technology by providing ex· traordinary demands, which technology has met. We have, here, tried to foresee what technology can provide, and what the next decade of astronomy requires to ma1ntain its present rate of advance.