Author Topic: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey  (Read 49240 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #20 on: 01/08/2017 10:15 pm »
My latter point is financing this cooperation with ESA is financially going to impact the decadal survey as there is only so much money to go around.

But that's not what you actually wrote. You wrote about what the next astro decadal survey will be about, not what is going on leading up to the next DS. The DS prioritizes for the next decade. Stuff that is already in development does not get re-prioritized.
But you're going to be rather hampered prioritizing anything if you're short of money. As it said in the article look what happened to the projects from the last one because of financial issues with existing projects.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #21 on: 01/09/2017 05:22 am »
But you're going to be rather hampered prioritizing anything if you're short of money. As it said in the article look what happened to the projects from the last one because of financial issues with existing projects.

But the point of decadal is to prioritise. What do propose should be done?

I  don't understand why you're so worried about GW crowding out everything else. There's no indication that GW astronomy is going to get a disproportionally large share of funding.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #22 on: 01/11/2017 01:51 am »
Lots of nitpicking on the politics of Decadal surveys as opposed to mentioning what's been suggested thus far...so I'll put down what I heard are 4 missions being debated although I assume much may still happen between 2017 and 2020.

LUVOIR - Basically Hubble and Webb's lovechild evolved out of the ATLAST and prior concepts requesting a space telescope with decent optical capability complemented with near-UV/IR.

HabEx - Project to directly image exoplanets with a coronagraph and starshade.

OST - Far-IR Surveyor with the new title of "Origins Space Telescope."

Lynx - X-ray Surveyor (I think someone pointed out earlier its name change as well).


I heard the most about LUVIOR, partially because when Webb was finalized many astronomers seemed to complain that there wasn't a proper successor to Hubble for UV/Optical frequencies, and ever since plenty of ideas for a giant Hubble have been popping up.  I don't think it's a bad idea, although the other 3 sound useful.  My opinion is, whatever is touted as "the next project" for astrophysics, it should be something outside of infrared simply to give the other forms of light a chance for study (much as say Venus deserves a visit as opposed to 80 more for Mars to use a planetary science comparison).
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #23 on: 01/11/2017 06:05 pm »
I don't know about the science the other 3 would produce, but the ability to directly image (and also spectrograph presumably) exoplanets is very tempting.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2017 06:06 pm by gosnold »

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1142
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #24 on: 01/11/2017 06:46 pm »
« Last Edit: 01/11/2017 06:49 pm by Eric Hedman »

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #25 on: 01/11/2017 06:51 pm »
Big projects are great, but I'd like to see a UV-capable telescope maybe 2 meters in diameter to do the UV science (especially spectroscopy) currently enabled by HST.  Something like the Hubble Origins Probe concept from JHU years ago, it would be way cheaper than LUVOIR. 

Real UV can only be done from space.  I remember hearing a knowledgable person say in a meeting many years ago, "It would be a shame if a Milky Way supernova occurs after HST dies, and we couldn't study it in the UV due to lack of a space telescope."  It got real quiet in the room.
Recovering astronomer

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1142
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #26 on: 01/11/2017 06:57 pm »
I'm curious about what it now takes to develop large aperture space telescopes after the development of the Webb.  Will the lessons learned make it any less expensive to develop large telescopes for other light frequencies?  Or if attempted are we likely to get a repeat of the Webb over runs?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #27 on: 06/14/2019 08:33 pm »
Astrophysicists gear up for 2020 decadal survey

Quote
As astrophysicists prepare to begin their next decadal survey, other scientists and members of Congress endorsed the overall process even as they suggested some changes.

At a town hall meeting during the 234th meeting of the American Astronomical Society here June 11, leaders of the latest astrophysics decadal survey, dubbed Astro2020, said they’re ready to begin work identifying scientific priorities in the field for the coming decade and what spacecraft and ground-based observatories are best suited for them.

Robert Kennicutt, an astronomer at the University of Arizona and Texas A&M University who serves as co-chair of Astro2020, said the National Academies, which oversees the decadal survey, received more than 450 nominations to serve on the steering committee Astro2020 decadal survey. Ultimately the National Academies selected 20 people, counting Kennicutt and fellow co-chair Fiona Harrison of Caltech, to serve on the committee.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #28 on: 08/19/2021 03:15 am »
This Report Could Make or Break the Next 30 Years of U.S. Astronomy

Quote from: Scientific American
Organized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, six Decadal Surveys have set the course of U.S. astronomy since they began in the 1960s. The results of the seventh, dubbed Astro2020, will soon be announced after two years of exhaustive deliberations led by a 20-member steering committee. And just like its predecessors, Astro2020 will reveal where major new investments and discoveries are most likely to be made—and where neglect, disinterest or even fear may block progress for generations to come.

Quote from: Scientific American
“We are right now on a knife-edge,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist of the W. M. Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. “I do believe this Decadal is existential for astronomy in the United States. When you consider the facilities and the science topics that are under discussion, it will influence whether or not we become a second-place player in global astronomy…. When the [federal] agencies and Congress receive the Decadal report, they will hold in their hands the decision of whether or not we wish to have leadership in this field of science.”

Quote from: Scientific American
Astronomers have named the four likeliest outcomes of the Astro2020 deliberations: “Scenario one, we call ‘the shit sandwich,’ which is if they recommend no flagships,” says one senior scientist. “Most of us think that would be disastrous. The ‘shit sandwich with a side of pickle’ is when they choose no flagships but recommend technology development for whatever could come next—which is close to what happened with Astro2010. The ‘nice lunch’ is what we get if they pick a true flagship. And the ‘perfect meal’ is their picking a flagship and setting priorities for technology development to enable a few more.”
« Last Edit: 08/19/2021 03:16 am by su27k »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #29 on: 08/19/2021 10:53 am »
This Report Could Make or Break the Next 30 Years of U.S. Astronomy
....

The preceding flagships observatories with the James Webb Space Telescope and the Roman Space Telescope. Think the Origins project is one Infra-Red space telescope too many for now.

Hope that either the LUVOIR or the HabEx find enough support to follow the Roman Space Telescope.

« Last Edit: 08/19/2021 09:06 pm by gongora »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #30 on: 08/19/2021 10:04 pm »
I did a lot of work on Astro 2020. Kinda depressing to see somebody compare our work to a poop sandwich.

Yeah, even the Roman telescope had an F bomb thrown via it's old WFIRST acronym.  Strong points are made about the infrared dominance, the lack of coverage of other spectra, and the protests in Hawaii, all of which I agree with to some degree.  Still, some good will come from both Webb and Roman at least; if more discoveries are made about exoplanets it'll be worth it.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #31 on: 08/19/2021 10:05 pm »
I did a lot of work on Astro 2020. Kinda depressing to see somebody compare our work to a poop sandwich.
Well, best to ignore statements by the anonymous "senior scientist".    8)

The SciAm article states "... projects are subject to Astro2020’s Technical Risk and Cost Evaluation (TRACE) process, a brand-new, behind-closed-doors checkup ...".

How is TRACE different from CATE (cost appraisal and technical evaluation) used for Astro2010? Both were carried out by Aerospace Corporation.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #32 on: 08/20/2021 01:50 am »
Yeah, even the Roman telescope had an F bomb thrown via it's old WFIRST acronym.

I helped work the WFIRST recommendation, which is really just the recognition that two of the highest-ranked white papers from Astro2010 were essentially proposing the same scope and could share observing time.  Roman is directly traceable to community proposals.  There’s no “what the f-bomb” about its pedigree.  The anonymous “leading astronomer” behind that quote is quite ignorant.

I also disagree with Tumlinson and the anonymous Hill staffer quoted in the article who disregard technical and budgetary realism.  It’s all well and good to aim high, but the community and its relationship with appropriators and OMB does not need another JWST or worse.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2021 01:51 am by VSECOTSPE »

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #33 on: 08/20/2021 09:18 am »
I did a lot of work on Astro 2020. Kinda depressing to see somebody compare our work to a poop sandwich.
I've seen cases where an interest group had split priorities. This empowered decision makers to postpone rulings on projects and funding allocations almost indefinitely. There is a reason why other scientific communities strive to implement their version of the decadal survey.

The power of the decadal surveys is to establish clear priorities, which serve as guidelines for decision makers (and their staffers) for funding priorities.

I understand that individual "senior scientist" will disagree with their pet project not being selected as a priority, and might feel that the great effort they put into it has been in vain. But I also think that (anonymously) trying to discredit to process is a disservice to the astro community.

Thanks a lot to Dwayne and others for making Astro2020 happen, and for all the "blood, toil, tears and sweat" you put in!  :)
« Last Edit: 08/20/2021 09:20 am by hoku »

Offline Dizzy_RHESSI

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #34 on: 08/21/2021 10:59 pm »
I did a lot of work on Astro 2020. Kinda depressing to see somebody compare our work to a poop sandwich.

It's a nice article but I think where it's lacking is that the discussion is based towards the flagship proposals. Almost everyone interviewed is part of one one of the STDTs. Not everyone in the community will feel that not selecting one of these proposals is a disaster. The article doesn't really mention that there is much more under consideration than just the large items, for example the probe studies. Seager touches on it a bit but the article doesn't expand on it. Lower cost missions offer a way to upgrade from ageing facilities without waiting two decades, while demonstrating new technologies and allowing for the backlog to clear. I am less optimistic about how easy it will be to get extra funding for astrophysics.

Offline Dizzy_RHESSI

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #35 on: 08/23/2021 07:29 am »
Having now worked two planetary decadals and one astrophysics decadal, I've learned that their respective science communities have different attitudes towards the flagship missions (which we tried a few years ago to try and get people to refer to as "large strategic missions," but that has not caught on). In astrophysics, flagship missions have a greater importance than in planetary science because flagship missions are shared by many more members of the community. A lot of people can sign up for observing time on a big mission and can use the data that it generates. This means that a researcher at a small university astrophysics department can get observing time and therefore is more likely to support the flagship mission. The smaller missions in astrophysics don't offer those kinds of opportunities unless you are on the mission team itself, and the mission teams tend to be only a few dozen people at most.

But this rule doesn't really really hold. In the case of NASA flagship missions you have Roman, for which only 25% of the time in the first 5 years is open to GO proposals. For HabEx 50% of the prime mission will be taken up by guaranteed time exoplanet surveys. There are SMEX missions which were more open that these flagships, it is not true that you have to be part of the team to get time. The difference is not about size, it's about the mode the observatory operates in.  Spitzer has been one of the most productive observatories of the last decade, even with just half of one instrument still functioning. Many would consider it to be a large mission, but due to the clever redesign it was relatively low cost. It didn't need to be a flagship or a category A mission to be an exceptional community observatory.  You also don't need everyone to get time to support the community, even in a proposal system it's still a lottery of who actually gets time. Large public surveys can be even more open and support just as wide a section of the community, take Kepler and Gaia as examples.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #36 on: 09/09/2021 10:55 am »
https://twitter.com/astrogrant/status/1435359568226394112

Quote
I wrote an absurdly long-winded and overly dramatic elegy for #Astro2020.

It’s part personal therapy session, part funeral pyre, and mostly a big-hearted thank you to the whole community

The end is in sight.

https://www.granttremblay.com/blog/astro2020

« Last Edit: 09/09/2021 10:57 am by su27k »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #37 on: 09/29/2021 04:12 am »
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1442908742635298818

Quote
Hertz [NASA astrophysics division director Paul Hertz] says everyone is "eagerly" awaiting the astrophysics Decadal Survey, but NASA had to move on w/o it. Had to formulate FY2023 budget req already, so it obviously doesn't contain $ for anything it. Hope it's out in time to guide next call for tech proposals in mid-Dec.

Q-if Decadal recommends new flagship can it launch in 2030s?
Hertz-priority is launching the 2 flagships we already have, JWST and Roman, & demonstrate to stakeholders we can do these missions. Then will decide right time to start a new one. Don't know what'll be recommended.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #38 on: 09/29/2021 04:37 am »
Is the decadal survey waiting to see what the results are of JWST's launch and deployment?

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #39 on: 10/15/2021 04:11 am »
Is the decadal survey waiting to see what the results are of JWST's launch and deployment?

I highly doubt it, I haven't seen JWST being mentioned as a gating item with regard to Astro2020 release.

Nobody seems to know why it is delayed though, and a lot of scientists are getting impatient and there're already memes about the delay on twitter.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1