Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This page intentionally left blank.

The summary of the charge to the Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics reads:

The complete statement of task is given in Appendix E.

Essentially, the committee was asked to consider (1) the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of observations of the cosmos, including technology development and new facilities needed, as well as the computational and theoretical framework for understanding the observations; (2) the extent of the common ground between fundamental physics and cosmology as well as other areas of interface with related scientific disciplines, as appropriate; and (3) the federal research programs that support work in the field of astronomy and astrophysics, including programs at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and selected aspects of the physics programs at the NSF and the Department of Energy (DOE). Only physics topics with a strong overlap with astronomy and astrophysics were within the study charge. In addition, only

ground- and not space-based solar astronomy was to be considered.¹ Direct detection of dark matter was also excluded from prioritization. The survey was also charged to assess the infrastructure of the field, broadly defined, and to consider the importance of balance within and among the activities sponsored by the various agencies that support research in astronomy and astrophysics.

The committee was asked to formulate a decadal research strategy with recommendations for initiatives in priority order within different categories (related to the size of the activities and their home agencies). In addition to reviewing individual initiatives, aspects of infrastructure, and so on, the committee also was asked to make a judgment about how well the current program addresses the range of scientific opportunities and how it might be optimized—all the time guided by the principle that the priorities would be motivated by maximizing future scientific progress.

An important characteristic of contemporary astronomy, and therefore of this survey, is that most research is highly collaborative, involving international, interagency, private, and state partnerships. This feature has expanded the scope of what is possible but also makes assessment and prioritization more complicated. Another important characteristic is that astronomy remains a discovery-oriented science and that any strategy designed to optimize the science must leave room for the unexpected.

In contrast to previous surveys of the field, the prioritization process for this one included consideration of those unrealized projects that had been recommended in previous decadal surveys but had not had a formal start, alongside new research activities² that have emerged more recently from the research community. The survey was asked to review the technical readiness of the projects being considered for prioritization, assess various sources of risk, and develop independent estimates of the cost and schedule risks of the activity with help from an independent contractor hired by the National Research Council (NRC), the Aerospace Corporation. There were also instructions to consider and make recommendations relating to the allocation of future budgets and to address choices that may be faced, given a range of budget scenarios—including establishing criteria on which the recommendations depend, and suggesting strategies for the agencies on how to rebalance programs within budgetary scenarios upon failure of one or more of the criteria.

The committee began its work in the fall of 2008 with preparations for the first plenary meeting of the Astro2010 Survey Committee in December 2008. The first task was to define the work for the nine expert panels appointed in early 2009 by the NRC to assist the committee in the execution of its charge. The five Science Frontier Panels (SFPs) defined and articulated the themes for the science case that underpins the survey recommendations. The four Program Prioritization Panels (PPPs) conducted an in-depth study of the technical and programmatic issues related to the 100 or so research activities—in total more than 10 times the program that could be supported under any credible budget—that the community presented to the survey in the months that followed.

The nine appointed panels comprised 123 members drawn from across all of astronomy and astrophysics. In the first phase of the survey, the five SFPs worked to identify science themes that define the research frontiers for the 2010-2020 decade in five areas: Cosmology and Fundamental Physics, the Galactic Neighborhood, Galaxies Across Cosmic Time, Planetary Systems and Star Formation, and Stars and Stellar Evolution. Drawing on the 324 white papers on science opportunities submitted to the NRC in response to an open call from the committee to the astronomy and astrophysics research community,³ as well as on briefings received from federal agencies that provide support for the field, the SFPs strove to identify the scientific drivers of the field and the most promising opportunities for progress in research in the next decade, taking into consideration those areas where the technical means and the theoretical foundations are in place to enable major steps forward. The SFPs were instructed to avoid advocacy for prioritization of specific new missions, telescopes, and other research activities. They also worked ahead of and therefore independent of the PPPs. The input of the SFPs to the committee was organized around four science questions ripe for answering and general areas with unusual discovery potential. The SFPs, and especially their chairs, dealt with the considerable challenge of anticipating future scientific developments and making tough choices with careful deliberation and collegiality.

In the second phase of the survey, the PPPs were charged to develop a ranked program of research activities in four programmatic areas: Electromagnetic Observations from Space; Optical and Infrared Astronomy from the Ground; Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation; and Radio, Millimeter, and Submillimeter Astronomy from the Ground. In addition to the draft science questions and discovery areas received from the SFP chairs at a joint meeting held in May 2009, the PPPs also reviewed the more than 100 proposals for research activities presented

by the astronomy and astrophysics community for consideration by the survey.⁴ In addition the PPPs received briefings from federal agencies, project proponents, and other stakeholders at public sessions held in June 2009 at the summer meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Pasadena, California. In their final assembly of priorities, the PPPs also took into account assessments of cost and schedule risk, and of the technical readiness of the research activities under consideration for prioritization. Each PPP proposed a program of prioritized, balanced, and integrated research activities, reflecting the results of its in-depth study of the technical and programmatic issues and of its consideration of the results of the independent technical evaluation and cost and schedule risk estimate. The committee received draft reports of the PPPs’ input on proposed programs at its fourth committee meeting in October 2009. All four PPPs and especially their chairs dealt with the daunting task of choosing, with objectivity and on the basis of their broad expertise, just a few of the many scientifically exciting and credible proposals in front of them. The reports of the five SFPs and the four PPPs are collected in a separate volume of this survey report.⁵

In addition to the nine panels, six Infrastructure Study Groups (ISGs) also provided input for the committee’s consideration. Consisting of 71 volunteer consultants drawn for the most part from the astronomy and astrophysics community, the ISGs gathered and analyzed data on “infrastructural” issues in six areas—Computation, Simulation, and Data Handling (including archiving of astronomical data); Demographics (encompassing astronomers and astrophysicists working in different environments and subfields); Facilities, Funding, and Programs (including infrastructure issues such as support for laboratory astrophysics and technology development and theory); International and Private Partnerships; Education and Public Outreach; and Astronomy and Public Policy (focusing on benefits to the nation that accrue from federal investment in astronomy and the potential contributions that professional astronomers make to research of societal importance, and mechanisms by which the astronomy community provides advice to the federal government)—to describe recent trends and past quantifiable impacts on research programs in astronomy and astrophysics. The ISGs provided preliminary factual material to the committee and the PPPs at the May 2009 meeting, and their final internal working papers were made available to the committee in the fall of 2009. The members of the six ISGs are listed in the section that follows this preface.

The five SFPs, four PPPs, and six ISGs were crucial components of the survey, not only for the content and critical analysis they supplied but also because of the connections they provided to the astronomy and astrophysics community. Moreover the panels and study groups completed a Herculean set of tasks in an extraordinarily short time. The results of their efforts were essential to the deliberations of the committee, the success of whose work depended critically on the sequential and orderly flow of information from the SFPs to the PPPs and then to the committee as provided for in the survey plan and structure. The committee acknowledges with heartfelt thanks the volunteers from the astronomy and astrophysics community who served on the panels and study groups. Their reports stand testament to the hard work done by the members, and especially their chairs, work whose full value will be recognized through the decade to come.

In addition, the survey as a whole benefited immensely from the broader participation of the astronomy and astrophysics community, which, over the course of the study, and in particular in the first half of 2009, undertook a massive effort to provide input to the survey process. Included were informal reports from 17 community town hall meetings, in addition to more than 450 white papers on topics including science opportunities, the state of the profession and infrastructure, and opportunities in technology development, theory, computation, and laboratory astrophysics. Critical to the success of the nine panels’ and six study groups’ work, these inputs were also an early product of the survey in that the white papers and various reports were made available on NRC Web pages.⁶ Far more important than the quantity, however, is the quality of the input. As public documents, many of these essays and proposals have already been widely cited in the professional literature. Although it will be many years before the significance of the survey can be assessed, the impact of the community input is already assured. On behalf of the committee and the panels, sincere thanks are extended to the volunteers from the research community who gave so much of their time to formulate this backbone of information and data as input for the Astro2010 survey process.

In addition to the 27 panel meetings conducted over the course of this survey, the survey committee itself met in person six times and held more than 100 teleconferences between December 2008 and May 2010. There were also detailed briefings from Jon Morse on behalf of NASA, Craig Foltz on behalf of NSF, and Dennis Kovar on behalf of DOE. All three agencies are thanked for their generous sponsorship of the survey and patient responses to requests for information that provided policy and budgetary context. In addition, the committee was pleased to receive critical perspectives from the U.S. Congress, the Office of Science and Tech-

nology Policy, and the Office of Management and Budget. Kevin Marvel and Kate Kirby, executive officers of the American Astronomical Society and the American Physical Society, respectively, offered their insights and arranged important interfaces to the community. Members of the committee met regularly with the Board on Physics and Astronomy and the Space Studies Board, whose members provided wise feedback and advice.

The committee undertook the hard and painful task, necessitated by the relatively severe financial constraints under which the agencies expect to have to operate, of consolidating the rich science opportunities and selecting from the many exciting and realizable activities presented to it. It established a set of criteria and, through a deliberative process, developed the program that is proposed in this report. The science objectives were first organized into three general themes enhanced by discovery areas. These themes were then focused into three science objectives for the decade, labeled “Cosmic Dawn,” “New Worlds,” and “Physics of the Universe.” The activities recommended to optimize addressing these objectives were organized into large, medium, and small activities in space and on the ground. The committee also took into account the organization of research programs in astronomy within the current federal agency structure.

The complexity of this process could have been overwhelming but for the support of the NRC staff at the Board on Physics and Astronomy and the Space Studies Board: Carmela Chamberlain, LaVita Coates-Fogle, Brian Dewhurst, Beth Dolan, Catherine Gruber, Caryn Knutsen, James Lancaster, David Lang, Robert L. Riemer, Richard Rowberg, Brant Sponberg, and Teri Thorowgood. These dedicated supporters of the field undertook the formidable task of making all these meetings work, receiving and organizing all the input, and providing the logistical and tactical support that allowed the committee to remain on task, on schedule, and on budget over the course of close to 2 years. In addition the committee benefited from the inputs provided by three younger members of the community who served as NRC Mirzayan Policy Fellows over the course of the survey—Baruch Feldman, Michael McElwaine, and Leslie Chamberlain. Christine Aguilar provided logistical support from Stanford.

On behalf of the committee, I express my personal gratitude to all of the above. I also thank Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, for his unfailing support and helpful guidance. Donald Shapero, director of the Board on Physics and Astronomy, likewise kept watch over the process and used his experience to keep it on track. Michael Moloney directed the survey from the start with remarkable efficiency, foresight, and tact and did not stint in his effort after he also took on the directorship of the Space Studies Board. Lastly, I acknowledge

every one of my 22 colleagues on the committee, who all worked extremely hard to learn about and then represent the whole field of astronomy and astrophysics. I am grateful for all that they have taught me and for their generous and good-natured support over the past 2 years. Among these must be singled out Martha Haynes, John Huchra, and Marcia Rieke, who acted so ably as vice chairs, and, especially, Lynne Hillenbrand, who served wisely, patiently, and tirelessly as executive officer. Each of these contributions was essential to the completion of the survey.

The committee has been faced with making difficult choices in what is widely agreed are sobering times. Our national finances are experiencing significant stress, and although at the time of this report’s release the support of the current administration and Congress for science is remarkable, this survey has had to act responsibly in considering the scope of the program it can envision. This happens in the context of reporting at a singular time in the history of astronomy, one of remarkable ongoing discovery and unlimited possibility. All who have served on or worked with the committee have been conscious of their personal good fortune to be living at this time and the wonderful scientific opportunity that today’s astronomers enjoy to seek new worlds and reach out to the new horizons of the universe. With the aid of the facilities operational today, those that are already started and will be completed during this decade, and those that are recommended to be started soon, this promises to be another extraordinary decade of discovery.

Roger D. Blandford, Chair

Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics

This page intentionally left blank.

The Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics acknowledges with gratitude the contributions of the members of the six Astro2010 Infrastructure Study Groups, who gathered information on issues related to the broad topics listed below.

Computation, Simulation, and Data Handling: Robert Hanisch, Space Telescope Science Institute, Co-Chair; Lars Hernquist, Harvard University, Co-Chair; Thomas Abel, Stanford University; Keith Arnaud, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; Tim Axelrod, LSST; Alyssa Goodman, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Kathryn Johnston, Columbia University; Andrey Kravtsov, University of Chicago; Kristen Larson, Western Washington University; Carol Lonsdale, National Radio Astronomy Observatory; Mordecai-Mark Mac Low, American Museum of Natural History; Michael Norman, University of California, San Diego; Richard Pogge, Ohio State University; and James Stone, Princeton University.

Demographics: James Ulvestad, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Chair; Jack Gallimore, Bucknell University; Evalyn Gates, University of Chicago; Rachel Ivie, American Institute of Physics; Christine Jones, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Patricia Knezek, WIYN Consortium, Inc.; Travis Metcalfe, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Naveen Reddy, National Optical Astronomy Observatory; Joan Schmelz, University of Memphis; and Louis-Gregory Strolger, Western Kentucky University.

Facilities, Funding, and Programs: J. Craig Wheeler, University of Texas at Austin, Chair; Rebecca A. Bernstein, University of California, Santa Cruz; David Burrows, Pennsylvania State University; Webster Cash, University of Colorado; R. Paul Drake, University of Michigan; Jeremy Goodman, Princeton University; W. Miller Goss, National Radio Astronomy Observatory; Kate Kirby, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Anthony Mezzacappa, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Robert Millis, Lowell Observatory; Catherine Pilachowski, Indiana University; Farid Salama, NASA Ames Research Center; and Ellen Zweibel, University of Wisconsin.

International and Private Partnership: Robert L. Dickman, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Chair; Michael Bolte, University of California, Santa Cruz; George Helou, California Institute of Technology; James Hesser, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics; Wesley T. Huntress, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Richard Kelley, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; Rolf-Peter Kudritzki, University of Hawai’i; Eugene H. Levy, Rice University; Antonella Nota, Space Telescope Science Institute; and Brad Peterson, Ohio State University.

Education and Public Outreach: Lucy Fortson, Adler Planetarium, Co-Chair; Chris Impey, University of Arizona, Co-Chair; Carol Christian, Space Telescope Science Institute; Lynn Cominsky, Sonoma State University; Mary Dussault, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Richard Tresch Feinberg, Phillips Academy; Andrew Fraknoi, Foothill College; Pamela Gay, Southern Illinois University; Jeffrey Kirsch, Reuben H. Fleet Science Center; Robert Mathieu, University of Wisconsin; George Nelson, Western Washington University; Edward Prather, University of Arizona; Philip Sadler, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Keivan Stassun, Vanderbilt University; and Sidney Woolf, LSST.

Astronomy and Public Policy: Daniel F. Lester, University of Texas at Austin, Chair; Jack Burns, University of Colorado; Bruce Carney, University of North Carolina; Heidi Hammel, Space Science Institute; Noel W. Hinners, Lockheed (retired); John Leibacher, National Solar Observatory; J. Patrick Looney, Brookhaven National Laboratory; Melissa McGrath, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center; and Annelia Sargent, California Institute of Technology.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Bernard F. Burke, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

This page intentionally left blank.

—John Huchra (AAS Newsletter, Issue 152, May/June 2010)

The Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics dedicates this report to a dear friend and valued colleague, John P. Huchra, who served as a vice chair for the decadal survey.

This page intentionally left blank.