National Academies Press: OpenBook

Roman Space Telescope Observing Time Allocation Principles: Report Series—Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (2022)

Chapter:Chapter 3 An Example of Combining Collaboration and Competition

« Previous: Chapter 2 Findings and Conclusions
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 An Example of Combining Collaboration and Competition." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Roman Space Telescope Observing Time Allocation Principles: Report Series—Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26740.
×

3

An Example of Combining Collaboration and Competition

In Chapter 2, the CAA advocated a combination of collaboration and competition leading to the final selection of Roman’s observing plan. Here the committee gives an example of how such a combination might work.

The committee was briefed on NASA’s preliminary plans for the collaborative process that would lead to the formation of Roman’s science observing plan. According to these plans, NASA would form three subcommittees, one for each CCS. Each of the subcommittees would collect community input and design each of the surveys. A steering committee would negotiate and resolve conflicts among CCS teams, if they arise. NASA will fund some of these activities, although the expectation is that some community members may volunteer their efforts as occurred in the development of the Legacy Survey of Space and Time for the Rubin Observatory.

The CAA endorses key elements of this plan and proposes to augment it with new elements that align with the principles outlined in Chapter 2. The committee suggests establishing four community working groups (WGs); see Figure 3.1. Three WGs would correspond to each of the current CCS, and a fourth would coordinate GA science surveys. The WGs would consist of funded and volunteer members of the community and would be managed by a leadership team, part of which would be appointed following a solicitation process, and part would be chosen by WG members. Each of the CCS WGs would be composed of subject-matter experts and would include GA scientists. The leadership team of each of the CCS WGs would include GA representatives. To optimize the CCS, and the overall science return of Roman, it is important to include GA scientists throughout the survey design processes.

The WGs would be charged to prepare several survey options each and to quantitatively map science deliverables to the observing time required for each of the survey options. As described in Chapter 2 (Principle 6), one of the options would be “minimal”—in the sense that it would quantify the minimum time a survey would require to achieve the Astro2010 science objectives. Other options could include longer surveys that would yield additional GA science enhancements. The GA WG would be encouraged to propose large, unique GA surveys that require observing resources beyond those available to GA within the CCS. For GA scientists, there would still exist the option to apply for GA observing time, as has been planned all along.

An independent STAC reviews all applications for Roman observing time and makes the final survey selections that will form Roman’s initial observing plan. Subsequent TACs make determinations about later GA calls for proposals. The STAC consists of members that have a broad range of expertise, and its operation and handling of conflicts of interest may be similar to the practice with executive TACs that have been setup for prior space missions such as Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer. The STAC would be balanced in multiple dimensions, including science interests and membership of underrepresented populations. It has broad latitude in optimizing Roman’s observing time. Although it would have a range of options for each survey, it would also have at its disposal quantitative information allowing it to make choices that deviate from the provided options. To optimize the overall program, the STAC may decide on a two-step proposal process. The first step could be used to encourage consolidation of surveys by teams that have not already identified potential synergies. Such consolidation could strengthen proposals and enhance the overall science return. The final selection would be done in the second step. The CAA recognizes the significant effort it would take to participate in the STAC. However, the level of effort

Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 An Example of Combining Collaboration and Competition." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Roman Space Telescope Observing Time Allocation Principles: Report Series—Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26740.
×
Image
FIGURE 3.1 Sketch for the design of a collaborative (green) and competitive (red) community process. The community collaborates through four working groups (WGs, solid green). To find optimal synergy, general astrophysics (GA) scientists participate in each of the CCS WGs and in the GA science WG (dash green). The WGs submit survey options that compete for Roman observing time (red arrows). An independent super time allocation committee (STAC) makes observing time selections. Community members also submit GA proposals for surveys of all scales to the STAC (black), which makes final selections.
NOTE: GBTD = Galactic Bulge Time Domain; HLTD = High Latitude Time Domain; HLWA = High Latitude Wide Area.

does not seem significantly greater than the investment by TACs for Hubble or Chandra. Some of the STAC work may be off-loaded to sub-panels with additional members, as done for Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer. The structure outlined in Figure 3.1 refers only to the process of establishing Roman’s initial observing plan.

Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 An Example of Combining Collaboration and Competition." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Roman Space Telescope Observing Time Allocation Principles: Report Series—Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26740.
×
Page11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 An Example of Combining Collaboration and Competition." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Roman Space Telescope Observing Time Allocation Principles: Report Series—Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26740.
×
Page12
Next: Chapter 4 Maximizing Flexibility »
Roman Space Telescope Observing Time Allocation Principles: Report Series—Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $22.00 Buy Ebook | $17.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Roman Space Telescope will measurably advance knowledge of dark energy and exoplanet demographics. Locally, it will likely enhance understanding of the structure and substructure of the Milky Way and nearby galaxies, including a census of the predicted but elusive ultra-faint dwarf galaxies. At high redshift, it can provide information on the topology of reionization and the abundance of sources like active galactic nuclei and pair-instability supernovae. With a wavelength range of 0.48-2.3 μm, the Roman Wide Field Imager has the largest etendue of any existing or planned optical/infrared space observatory. The coronagraph technology demonstration instrument will pioneer new capabilities that will be the basis for future instruments capable of directly detecting and characterizing Earth-like planets around nearby stars. If the technology demonstration is successful, observations with the coronagraph could make substantial advances in the study of planetary and disk systems.

At the request of NASA, this report reviews the Roman Space Telescope science program to set the appropriate mix of survey time devoted to the three Core Community Surveys (which address the weak lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, supernovae, and microlensing programs in NWNH) relative to guest investigator-led observing programs during the primary 5-year mission.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!