Quote from: as58 on 07/17/2011 09:26 pmI'd think the Keck telescopes could be seen as more direct (descoped)descendants of the New Technology Telescope proposal....My understanding is that the decadal surveys serve to assign priorities for NSF and NASA funding (not so much for "private" funding). Not sure how much of the (initial) Keck funds came from NSF. NASA definitely joined in later (1998?) as part of the SIM/TPF efforts.
I'd think the Keck telescopes could be seen as more direct (descoped)descendants of the New Technology Telescope proposal....
I'm sorry about constantly replying to my own thread, I promise this is the last one tonight.Interestingly (and rather strangely, in my opinion) there's a short chapter on Astronomy from the Moon in the 1991 survey ("According to current plans for the manned space program, humanity's return to the moon is not expected to take place until sometime in the first decade of the 21st century"). They don't discuss any specific plans in detail, but briefly describe many possible observations. Does anyone (Blackstar?) know how this chapter came about? Was it the survey committee's own initiative or were they directed to write something about moon based astronomy given the expected return to the moon?
So it was apparently something that the committee was asked to do by the sponsors, just as you thought.
I've been told that the first two astronomy and astrophysics decadal surveys are available on Google Books. But I have not checked on that myself.
Does anyone know if the first two (1964 and 1972) decadal surveys are available anywhere online? The 1980s and later surveys are easily found (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_052876), but I've had no luck locating the old ones.
Okay, here is the 1964 astronomy decadal survey, the very first one. I photocopied and scanned it this evening. It is about 110 pages.Although I have located a copy of the 1972 one, I'm not going to get around to scanning that anytime soon. For one thing, I don't know how to photocopy it without cracking the spine (it's brittle) and it's not my copy. For another, the report is divided into two volumes (vol 2 is the report of the science panels) and the second one is pretty thick.If I can get a less delicate copy of vol 1, I could scan it, but that will have to wait.
Thanks! Clearly written and strigently argued report. Also, in some respects we do not seem to have progressed much since the 1960s: Estimating the cost of large research instruments that have not yet been built is admittedly difficult. The Panel is well aware of the fact that the figures submitted in this Report may meet with considerable skepticism. Such doubts are not surprising in view of the number of times that enthusiastic proponents of new research facilities in the physical sciences have seriously underestimated the cost. Astronomical ventures have by no means been immune from this experience.
Note that astronomy has been doing this since the 1960s. Earth sciences did their first one in 2007. Heliophysics did their first around 2002 and is doing their second. Planetary science did their first in 2001 and just finished their second. (I was a study director for the most recent one.)
Huh, I thought planetary science had been doing them a lot longer. I know I have some NAS reports from the early '70s involving planetary science (although perhaps those were astronomical as well; I particularly remember one that mentioned Gravity Probe B ahead of Voyager in terms of funding importance...), and they seemed like a decadal survey-sort of thing.
On page 56 there's a mention of an unsuccessful attempt at Sugar Grove to build a steerable 600 foot radio telescope. Some quick searching shows that it was the Naval Research Laboratory's project that was halted in 1962. Does anyone know an online source with more information than can be found in a couple of minutes using search engines?
It deals with cancellation of the project, mentioning the cost and engineering problems. The writer infers that a major factor was that satellite signals intelligence could by then do better than the original purpose of the 600-foot dish (which was to have been in large part moonbounce eavesdropping).
Many thanks for that.The Board on Physics and Astronomy has posted the 1960s one to their website after I scanned it.http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/index.htmIt's at the bottom of this page:http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_048094#1977We discussed making a copy of the 1970s one, but we need to get a copy that we won't damage while copying it (i.e. one with a library reinforced spine). Nobody has stepped up on that one yet, however. The Space Studies Board recently produced the latest edition of their DVD with all of their reports on it. However, the first and second astronomy decadal surveys are BPA reports, not SSB reports, and are not on there. We are considering including them on the next version of the DVD, labeled as BPA reports.
I believe that about a decade ago a former NRL historian (since deceased) wrote a history article on this big dish. I don't know if he ever published it. I will check my files.It definitely had intelligence collection as a primary or strong secondary mission. There may be a chapter about it in a collection of articles about the history of radioastronomy. I will look and ask around.