Author Topic: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey  (Read 5279 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« on: 01/03/2017 07:39 PM »
Jeff Foust –  ‏@jeff_foust

Mark your calendars: Hertz says Astro2020 decadal study will be released in Dec 2020; a little later so JWST science can support it #AAS229

Hertz: expect to select 5-8 concepts for study in Feb for “probe-class” ($400M-$1B) astrophysics missions to support 2020 decadal. #AAS229

Jeff Foust –  ‏@jeff_foust

X-Ray Surveyor, a flagship mission concept being studied for the 2020 decadal, is now known as Lynx. Hope that name’s not jinxed. #AAS229
« Last Edit: 01/06/2017 06:54 PM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
2020 Decadal Survey
« Reply #1 on: 01/06/2017 06:49 PM »
Interesting to see the decadal survey getting it in the neck so to speak.

Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust
One audience member offers this criticism of the use of decadal reports: they’re “almost used like a biblical text” #AAS229

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust
Rieke: big changes since 2010 next decadal will have to take into account include gravitational wave science, exoplanets/astrobio. #AAS229

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust
Marcia Rieke: not too soon to start thinking about 2020 decadal. Expect to have statement of task by Feb 2018, start work Dec 2018. #AAS229

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust
Big crowd on hand at #aas229 to discuss planning for the next astrophysics decadal survey, Astro2020.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2017 06:50 PM by Star One »

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 154
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #2 on: 01/06/2017 07:43 PM »
Interesting to see the decadal survey getting it in the neck so to speak.

Well, one tweet doesn't indicate mass unhappiness. 

Back in the day, I was always impressed by how my colleagues were able to select members of our community and build a committee that could grapple with the simple fact that we wanted way more space probes/telescopes/instruments/data analysis money than could possibly be funded.  The great majority of these projects were solid and useful, and even the "oh, we've GOT to do this" stuff was generally more than could be afforded.  Coming up with the decadal surveys allowed astronomy to speak with "one voice."  As with any such kind of document, clearly some will be displeased.

If you read the decadal reports, it's pretty hard to deny that very bright people work very hard to produce a balanced program for astronomy and astrophysics that is sized for the harsh budget reality.  Not everything that's asked for is funded.  But you get a good mix of big and little projects, funding for infrastructure and data analysis (there's never enough of that; it's not "sexy") and outlines of options for flagship missions.  By keeping that work "in the family," scientists essentially rank the scientific importance of different projects, rather than having bureaucrats or politicians do it.

The alternative is (and we see it in these forums sometimes!) where one person says, "hey, if I badmouth that project, then NASA/NSF/whoever will fund this other project, that I like, instead!"  Except, it doesn't work that way.  The most likely result of successfully killing somebody else's project would be that the agency budget would be decreased by that amount the next fiscal year.
Recovering astronomer

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #3 on: 01/06/2017 07:48 PM »
Interesting to see the decadal survey getting it in the neck so to speak.

>>Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust
One audience member offers this criticism of the use of decadal reports: they’re “almost used like a biblical text” #AAS229

I assume you are referring to that quote by Jeff. That's not an unheard of criticism. I think that there are legitimate and illegitimate (misguided) criticisms of the DSes. I also think that there are people who will perpetually gripe about them because they have to gripe about things--by which I mean, nobody thinks that the DSes are perfect, and I doubt that anybody thinks that they can be perfect. But when you become an adult you realize that there are things that will never be perfect and you have to accept that, and find some satisfaction that despite their imperfections, they are far better than the alternatives. (This is the basis of a lasting marriage, for instance, or democracy.)

But one could also argue that their near-biblical status is an asset and not a weakness, because it makes it possible for their goals to be implemented. If the decadal surveys did not exist, then every science mission selection would be a political football, and missions that got approved would get canceled just because the politicians changed. We might ask if that happens elsewhere in the space program. Does anybody want astrophysics to have the same track record as the human spaceflight program?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #4 on: 01/06/2017 08:56 PM »
How is the astrophysics decadal report is being discussed so much earlier than others. Aren't they all roughly done in the same time period.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #5 on: 01/06/2017 10:14 PM »
How is the astrophysics decadal report is being discussed so much earlier than others. Aren't they all roughly done in the same time period.

No. If they were, the staff (me) would die. These are HUGE efforts. Usually there is a steering committee consisting of maybe 15-20 people, plus at least five panels, consisting of a dozen or more people. Each one of those groups is holding at least three meetings. Plus there are town halls, white papers, discussion forums, etc. That's a lot of work. Plus NASA provides a lot of support, and then there's the independent cost estimating process, which is a lot of money and effort.

Earth sciences is right now. Astro will be up next. Planetary will follow that by a year or so. Helio will be a few years after that.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #6 on: 01/06/2017 10:15 PM »
I'd also note that in between the decadals there are mid-decadal reviews. I'm putting together the one for planetary right now.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #7 on: 01/06/2017 10:38 PM »
1-build a committee that could grapple with the simple fact that we wanted way more space probes/telescopes/instruments/data analysis money than could possibly be funded.

2-Coming up with the decadal surveys allowed astronomy to speak with "one voice." 

3-As with any such kind of document, clearly some will be displeased.

4-By keeping that work "in the family," scientists essentially rank the scientific importance of different projects, rather than having bureaucrats or politicians do it.


1-There's a subtle, but important point to keep in mind about this: the decadals are given an "expected budget" for the next ten years when they start. That's just a guess by whatever people are in the Office of Management and Budget at the time, and it does not reflect what is likely to happen, especially when you consider that there will be a new president and multiple congresses over that period.

It is common for people--including ignorant journalists--to respond to a newly released decadal survey by saying "It does not reflect budgetary reality." That's not really a valid criticism for lots of reasons, including that budgetary reality may change as a result of the decadal survey. In other words, the political decision makers may say "There is a really cool mission proposal in that report, we will give NASA more money to do it." Look at the Europa mission.

2-This is really important. Most people who are not experienced with space policy and science policy don't get this. The reality is that people in OMB and especially in Congress cannot get into nitty-gritty science details. So they want a method of simplifying it for them so they can make the decisions on what to fund and not to fund. THAT is what the decadal surveys do. They emphasize what the community as a whole thinks is most important.

3-Yes. I think that the mature ones recognize that just because they disagree with the outcome, that does not mean that the process is flawed. If your sports team loses, you don't say that the rulebook was flawed and needs to be rewritten. Now what often happens is that if somebody does not like the outcome, they claim that the group was biased and applied the rules badly. But you'd be surprised at how much integrity the people running these surveys can have. I've seen people argue against their own institution's best interests because they have a sense of what is best for the community. Just because a JPL person is involved does not mean they will represent JPL's interest (that's why there are closed door deliberations, so people can speak freely).

4-Yes. Exactly. And when you do this over a long enough period of time (astrophysics has been doing it since the 1960s), you create an expectation within the community that if you want to get your project funded, then you have to convince your fellow scientists of its merit, you don't try to whisper in a senator's ear.

I could make a joke about how it is the worst system except for all the others, but I don't believe that. I have actually come to believe that it works remarkably well. It's not perfect, but nothing is. But I've never seen any criticism that includes a proposal for a superior method of getting space science projects funded in a democracy. In fact, the American approach is the envy of the world. Other space agencies (ESA, Japan, China) have shown interest in the American decadal survey process and may start emulating it.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 176
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #8 on: 01/07/2017 05:40 AM »
I'm slightly doubtful that a similar decadal review system would work as well for other space agencies with much smaller budgets. When there's only money for a couple of missions a decade, there's not much to prioritize and IMO, competing each one separately as ESA does works adequately.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #9 on: 01/07/2017 12:32 PM »
I'm slightly doubtful that a similar decadal review system would work as well for other space agencies with much smaller budgets. When there's only money for a couple of missions a decade, there's not much to prioritize and IMO, competing each one separately as ESA does works adequately.

I have my doubts too. One of the reasons that it works in the US is because the community is large and there are numerous opportunities. (Okay, so that's two reasons.)

But we have interacted with people from these other space agencies and they have shown interest in the DS process. There is widespread recognition that it works quite well.

To this I would add that a couple of years ago we did a study generally referred to as the "survey of surveys." You could google that. It was a study about all of the surveys and what they could do to improve. I have not read it, but I've been briefed about it. The point was to learn what worked well and what needed improvement. A lot of that has to deal with the cost and technical evaluation for mission concepts. This is a necessary evil--it has some major drawbacks, but Congress has deemed it a requirement because they want to have a sense of the scale of missions that are being proposed.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 176
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #10 on: 01/07/2017 12:46 PM »
A lot of that has to deal with the cost and technical evaluation for mission concepts. This is a necessary evil--it has some major drawbacks, but Congress has deemed it a requirement because they want to have a sense of the scale of missions that are being proposed.

Some kind of technical/cost evaluation seems very important to me. I think that wasn't done (at least in any detail) in 2000s astrophysics decadal and as one can guess, the cost estimates were extremely optimistic.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #11 on: 01/07/2017 02:24 PM »
A lot of that has to deal with the cost and technical evaluation for mission concepts. This is a necessary evil--it has some major drawbacks, but Congress has deemed it a requirement because they want to have a sense of the scale of missions that are being proposed.

Some kind of technical/cost evaluation seems very important to me. I think that wasn't done (at least in any detail) in 2000s astrophysics decadal and as one can guess, the cost estimates were extremely optimistic.

I wonder if this survey will end up being all about Gravitational Wave astronomy with other things struggling to get a look in.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 176
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #12 on: 01/07/2017 03:36 PM »
I wonder if this survey will end up being all about Gravitational Wave astronomy with other things struggling to get a look in.

I'm sure gravitational wave astronomy will feature prominently, but none of the four flagship concepts being pre-studied is a GW observatory.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #13 on: 01/07/2017 09:58 PM »
I wonder if this survey will end up being all about Gravitational Wave astronomy with other things struggling to get a look in.

I'm sure gravitational wave astronomy will feature prominently, but none of the four flagship concepts being pre-studied is a GW observatory.

But wasn't there a report directing NASA to corroborate extensively with ESA on their forthcoming GW observatory as part of this consideration?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #14 on: 01/08/2017 02:09 PM »
I wonder if this survey will end up being all about Gravitational Wave astronomy with other things struggling to get a look in.

It doesn't work like that. When these things are established, the various sub-disciplines within the discipline are all represented. That does not mean that they are all equal, but it's not like the committee would include 99 gravitational wave astronomers and 1 infrared person.

Also, one of the benefits of having a decadal survey is that they don't go chasing after the latest discovery like 5-year-olds chasing after a soccer ball. The subjects that tend to rise to the top of the priority list do so after a long period of time. That's important for the outside credibility of the study--when a politician looks at the report and asks "how do I know that this #1 thing on the list is really important?" the answer is not simply that the top scientists have recommended it, but that it has been highly recommended for a long time, demonstrating that it is not a fad.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #15 on: 01/08/2017 04:54 PM »
I wonder if this survey will end up being all about Gravitational Wave astronomy with other things struggling to get a look in.

It doesn't work like that. When these things are established, the various sub-disciplines within the discipline are all represented. That does not mean that they are all equal, but it's not like the committee would include 99 gravitational wave astronomers and 1 infrared person.

Also, one of the benefits of having a decadal survey is that they don't go chasing after the latest discovery like 5-year-olds chasing after a soccer ball. The subjects that tend to rise to the top of the priority list do so after a long period of time. That's important for the outside credibility of the study--when a politician looks at the report and asks "how do I know that this #1 thing on the list is really important?" the answer is not simply that the top scientists have recommended it, but that it has been highly recommended for a long time, demonstrating that it is not a fad.

But as I said above the mid-term report recommended  that NASA re-establish its cooperation with ESA over LISA and that's not going to be cheap, and will take a goodly slice from the astrophysics budget.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/astronomy-s-next-big-space-telescope-could-threaten-field-panel-warns

Also as it says above JWST has had an adverse impact on the budget as well, let alone WFIRST which thanks to the NRO's gift of mirrors has increased in scale and corresponding budget.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2017 04:57 PM by Star One »

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 176
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #16 on: 01/08/2017 07:10 PM »
But as I said above the mid-term report recommended  that NASA re-establish its cooperation with ESA over LISA and that's not going to be cheap, and will take a goodly slice from the astrophysics budget.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/astronomy-s-next-big-space-telescope-could-threaten-field-panel-warns

Also as it says above JWST has had an adverse impact on the budget as well, let alone WFIRST which thanks to the NRO's gift of mirrors has increased in scale and corresponding budget.

You're making quite a leap from plan of re-establishing GW observatory co-operation with ESA to gravitational wave stuff dominating the next decadal.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #17 on: 01/08/2017 07:40 PM »
But as I said above the mid-term report recommended  that NASA re-establish its cooperation with ESA over LISA and that's not going to be cheap, and will take a goodly slice from the astrophysics budget.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/astronomy-s-next-big-space-telescope-could-threaten-field-panel-warns

Also as it says above JWST has had an adverse impact on the budget as well, let alone WFIRST which thanks to the NRO's gift of mirrors has increased in scale and corresponding budget.

You're making quite a leap from plan of re-establishing GW observatory co-operation with ESA to gravitational wave stuff dominating the next decadal.

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.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2017 07:40 PM by Star One »

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 176
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #18 on: 01/08/2017 07:46 PM »
But as I said above the mid-term report recommended  that NASA re-establish its cooperation with ESA over LISA and that's not going to be cheap, and will take a goodly slice from the astrophysics budget.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/astronomy-s-next-big-space-telescope-could-threaten-field-panel-warns

Also as it says above JWST has had an adverse impact on the budget as well, let alone WFIRST which thanks to the NRO's gift of mirrors has increased in scale and corresponding budget.

You're making quite a leap from plan of re-establishing GW observatory co-operation with ESA to gravitational wave stuff dominating the next decadal.

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.

It's very likely not going to be a flagship-size contribution. As plans go currently, it would be led, and mostly paid for, by ESA.

We already know that (unless something unexpected happens) the next flagship after WFIRST will be a big X-ray, FIR, or UV/optical/NIR (two different concepts being studied) observatory.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #19 on: 01/08/2017 08:45 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.


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9330
  • UK
  • Liked: 1656
  • Likes Given: 183
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: 782
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 176
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 Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #22 on: 01/09/2017 12:20 PM »
But the point of decadal is to prioritise. What do propose should be done?

I think the GW stuff is an infrared herring.

But I'll use that as an opportunity to add some information:

When setting up the ground rules and the assumptions going into a DS, the committee usually gets two contradictory directions. The OMB side says "Here is a ten-year notional budget profile, do not exceed this." Congressional staff usually says "Do not feel constrained by the ten-year profile, we also want to see what things the community might do with additional money." The result is that a DS will usually produce several notional outcomes, including one that fits into the ten-year profile, and one that goes above it.

And that's actually about right. That's what they should do. Otherwise, some overly conservative spendthrifts at OMB might try to set a budget that is low simply because it allows them to assume that they can use that money for other non-space purposes. Congress wants to know what is possible, and wants to base funding decisions on that.

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #23 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: 445
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 985
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #24 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 »

Online Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 225
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #25 on: 01/11/2017 06:46 PM »
« Last Edit: 01/11/2017 06:49 PM by Eric Hedman »

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 154
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #26 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

Online Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 225
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #27 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 Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked: 2711
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey
« Reply #28 on: 01/11/2017 07:01 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?

They will make it "less expensive." The problem will be any new technologies that get added on. Those will cost more. So if you just wanted to do deployable large optics, without any super fancy new instruments, the lessons learned will make that possible and cheaper than if you had not done that. It will not be cheap, however.

Tags: