Author Topic: 2020 Astrophysics Decadal Survey  (Read 5385 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9564
  • UK
  • Liked: 1761
  • 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: 802
  • Liked: 276
  • Likes Given: 179
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.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11388
  • Liked: 2892
  • 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: 1926
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 64
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: 458
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 1024
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 »

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 242
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: 713
  • Liked: 256
  • 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

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 242
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?

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11388
  • Liked: 2892
  • 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: