Strategic Context for
Gravitational Wave Astronomy
Patrick Looney
Assistant Director, Physical Science and Engineering
Office of Science & Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Government Environment for Research
Political
(Macro)
Agency
(Corporate)
Research
Program
(Competitive)
Internal
Government Environment for Research
Political
(Macro)
Agency
(Corporate)
Research
Program
(Competitive)
Internal
Political Factors Influencing the Direction of R&D
Scientific Push
Societal Pull
R&D Environment
(opportunities)
(demands)
(capacity &
infrastructure)
• Bio (genomics, stem
cells, etc),
• {Homeland &
National} Defense
• Capital (financial)
• Materials Science
(“nano”)
• Energy
• Technology (Research
Tools)
• IT
• Intersection of Physics and
Astronomy
• Economic Security
• Health
• Environment
• Food/Water
• Exploration
• People
• Legal (Policy, Leg.
Regulation)
Historical Discretionary and R&D Spending
140
1000
900
120
R&D ($ B)
100
700
Total Discretionary
600
80
500
Total R&D
60
400
Defense
300
40
200
20
NonDefense
100
0
1960
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
YEAR
1990
1995
2000
2005
Discretionary ($B)
800
R&D as a Share of Discretionary Spending
It’s approximately constant over the last 40 years!
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1962
1967
1972
1977
R&D/ Discretionary, Civilian
R&D/ Discretionary, Total
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
Civilian R&D share, excluding Apollo
Total R&D share, excluding Apollo
Trends in Nondefense R&D by Function, FY 1953-2004
45
Space (NASA)
Billions (FY 96 dollars)
40
Energy
35
30
Other
25
Natural Resources
and Environment
20
General Science
(NSF+atomic energy)
15
Health (total)
10
5
0
1953
1958
1963
1968
1973
1978
1983
Fiscal Year
1988
1993
1998
2003
Large Projects in Discovery-Oriented Physical Sciences
Rules of Thumb
How big is it?
< $100M
interagency coordination probably not a requirement
international participation probably not a requirement
mild political interest
$100M - $1B interagency coordination likely
international participation may be needed
moderate political interest
> $1B
assume interagency and/or international planning &
realization required
definite high-level political interest
Trends at the Political Level (3 – 10 years)
• R&D will capture 11% – 14% of the discretionary budget (~
$750M/yr)
• The mix of investments will change. Deliberations on how to fund
research at the intersection of the life and physical sciences will
come to the fore.
• There will be a growing emphasis on science for the public good.
• There will be a greater emphasis by the administration/congress on
understanding what we are getting for our investment, minimize
redundancy, maximize return on large existing investment base.
• There will be a greater emphasis on project risk management,
longer lead time for project approval, more R&D.
Government Environment for Research
Agencies:
NASA, NSF, DOE
Political
(Macro)
Agency
(Corporate)
Research
Program
(Competitive)
Internal
Agency Level
Business Context
White House
Cabinet-Level Agencies
White House
Offices
(not all)
Energy
EPA
ED
DOT
Defense
Treasury
Labor
HHS
Commerce
NIST
Science
NSF
NASA
Independent Agencies
MPS
Science
(not all)
USDA
Current NSTC
Structure
Committee on
Environment &
Natural Resources
WH: Olsen
DOC: Lautenbacher
EPA: Gilman
Global Change Research
Air Quality Research
NSTC
Director, OSTP
Committee on
Science
Committee on
Technology
WH: Olsen
NSF: Colwell
NIH: Zerhouni
Research Business Models
WH: Russell
DOC: Bond
Education & Workforce Dev.
Technology Dev.
Large Scale Science
Human Subjects Research
Ecosystems
Toxics & Risks
Water Availability & Quality
IWG Earth Observations
WH: Dale
DOD: Wynne
DHS: McQueary
National Security R&D
Networking Information
& Technology
Radiological/Nuclear
Countermeasures
Nanoscale Science, Eng.
& Technology
International
Aquaculture
Disaster Reduction
Committee on
Homeland and
National Security
IWG Physics of the Universe
Aerospace
IWG Plant Genome
WMD Medical
Countermeasures
Standards
IWG Dom. Animal Genomics
R&D Investment Criteria
Research Misconduct Policy
Infrastructure
IWG on Dioxin
Legend
Informal
Under development
Oceans
Health and the Environment.
Biotechnology
Social, Behavioral & Econ.
Trends at the Agency Level
• NASA
–
–
–
–
–
Exploration Vision: Major Organizational Changes.
Return to Flight; ISS Core Complete: Costly!
Hubble Servicing Mission: Costly, Scientific Return/$?
Strong Budget Pressure to 2010.
Earth observations?
• NSF
– Continued pressure to plan large projects well.
– MRE Project Budget Pressure.
– Budget growth: moderate
• DOE
– Yucca, Clean-Up, Weapons/Security, Energy Emphasized.
– Pressure on Office of Science (non-energy mission areas)
Agency Level – Large Scale Science
• LSS traditionally the realm of High Energy
Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astronomy and Space
Science.
• These activities where born in a cold war era.
• Traditional fields have now ‘matured’ and
motivations have changed.
• Balance of operations, research, new and
existing facilities a chronic issue but serious
issues loom for paths forward.
• Spin-offs from HEP and NP lead to the
development of the highly successful materials
characterization facilities. Not as mature - but
similar stewardship issues exist.
• Computer, Microelectronics, IT & Networking
advances in the 80’s and 90’s enabling new LSS
Projects.
Environment for new “large scale science” programs:
• Large installed base of existing facilities - some may be
under utilized, some may be redundant, some maybe a
low priority for continuation, many need upgrades.
• Aging facilities consume budgets, prove difficult to close.
• Traditional fields (HEP, NP, AST) proposing a significant
number of new facilities and asking for significant new $.
• Increased competition from emerging fields. Some will
most certainly be deserving of funding.
• Significant increase in earmarking and lobbying activity in
R&D funding. Re-adjudication of decisions and straight-up
earmarking of facilities.
Agency Level Environment –
Trends:
• Pressure to emphasize ‘relevant’ research.
• Pure discovery will grow more slowly than ‘relevant’. It is most likely that it
will not decline.
• Advisory Committees propose more facility concepts than budget growth
will support (by factors of 2 – 4). Not all will be funded.
Consequences:
• Programs managed by objective. (What are the goals? How do you select
research areas?)
• Program activities are placed in a broader (scientific/technological) context.
• Programs and activities coordinated across the government
• Programs planned using reasonable budget scenarios.
• Needs for machines, instruments, specialized facilities derived directly from
objectives.
• Programs work to place themselves in national & international context.
• Working to minimize redundancy, low priority activities or programs that do
not make a superior contribution.
Government Environment for Research
Political
(Macro)
Agency
(Corporate)
Research
Program
(Competitive)
Internal
Decadal Survey: The Bible
• Taken seriously by OSTP, OMB, Agencies, Hill
•Sets Community Priorities
• Provides a roadmap for large facilities
• No other community has been able to achieve this level
of planning
• Assumed SM-4 was a given.
• Does not prioritize large vs medium vs small
• Exploration impact on implementation may be significant
•Coordination is needed to be most effective.
“a new coordination and planning process is called for
that should bring together all of the federal supporters
of astronomy and astrophysics for the first time, the
committee believes that the Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Office of Management and
Budget are the proper government entities to
supervise the establishment of such a process.”
HR 4664 and the AAAC
SEC. 23. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
shall jointly establish an
Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Advisory
Committee’’).
(b) DUTIES.—The Advisory Committee shall—
(1) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the coordination of astronomy and
astrophysics programs of the Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
(2) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the status of the activities of the Foundation
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as they relate to the
recommendations contained in the National Research Council’s 2001 report entitled
‘‘Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium’’, and the recommendations contained
in subsequent National Research Council reports of a similar nature;
(f) COORDINATION.—The Advisory Committee shall coordinate with the advisory
bodies of
other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, which
may engage in
related research activities.
Trends at the Agency Level
• NSF
– Physics:
• LIGO: Mutli-year Ops at design sensitivity
• Adv Ligo Approved by NSB for 2007 start.
• GRID Computing
– Astronomy
• NSF Building Ground Based Telescopes? (public-private partnerships)
• DOE
– High End Computing Initiative, INCITE Program (Open Competition for
NERSC Time)
– Theoretical/Experimental work in unification.
– Increased investments in space-based probes for
cosmology/astrophysics (dark energy, dark matter, astrophysical
processes of relevance to HEP/NP)
Trends at the Agency Level
• NASA
– Beyond Einstein de-emphasized and pushed out. Not eliminated.
– LISA: agreement with ESA adds resilience to budget forces.
– Con-X: budget pressure remains high.
• Emphasis on Cooperation and Coordination of Research Programs
– NASA and NSF Astronomy Programs
– DOE expertise and mission need to use the laboratory of the cosmos
– Coordination of Advice: AAAC
NSTC IWG on The Physics of the Universe
Co-chairs: Anne Kinney, Joe Dehmer, Robin Staffin (Peter Rosen)
Participation:
NASA OSS
NSF (Astronomy, Physics, Office of Polar Programs),
DOE
High Energy Physics
Nuclear Physics
Fusion Energy Science
NNSA
OSTP, OMB
Quarks to the Cosmos Report
1. What is the Dark Matter?
2. What is Dark Energy?
3. How did the Universe Begin?
4. Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?
5. What are the masses of the neutrinos and how have they shaped our
universe?
6. How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating?
7.
Are protons unstable?
8. What are new states of matter at exceedingly high density and
temperature? (HED)
9. Are there additional space-time dimensions?
10. How were elements from iron to uranium made?
11. Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?
Response to Quarks to the Cosmos
• What are the approaches to answers?
• What suite of tools are needed?
• What are the highest priorities?
• What are the “tall pole” policy issues?
• Define steward agencies for fields and tools.
• Define who will do what and when (as best we
can).
• Bring items up for a decision in a timely manner.
POU Investment Priorities: Process
• Develop inventory of current investments.
• Prioritize the 11 scientific questions using:
• potential for scientific advancement
• timeliness for the investment
• technical readiness of projects
• existence of gaps in current investments
POU: Prioritization of Recommendations
• Use questions prioritized in terms of investment priority.
• Sort or group questions into themes that are programmatically linked
across agencies (e.g. dark matter, neutrinos, proton decay).
• Develop recommended actions for each theme area (across agencies)
• Assess programmatic readiness to proceed.
• Grouped into:
• Directions known.
• Roadmap/flesh out areas in more detail.
Emerging Scheme for Coordination of Advisory
Committee Activities
ONP
NSAC
Neutrino
Physics
OHEP
HEPAP
Accelerator
Based High
Energy Physics
NSF
AAAC
Dark Energy
Dark Matter
NASA
SEUS
High Energy
Particle
Astrophysics
Some of the questions that will be asked:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What are the driving scientific questions for the field?
Are the questions interesting or important?
How do these questions fit into the larger picture of science?
How will this program address the driving questions?
Is the program plan a national plan rather than an agency plan?
What are the priorities for this plan?
How will this program plan impact the elements of the field?
Is the planning realistic? ($, time, available technologies,
management)
• What is the international context? Are there redundancies? Is
there an international vision/consensus?
• Will this impact or strengthen other programs or related activities
(across the Government) ?
(if so, is there demonstrated coordination with these other programs?)
• How has the program been managing and performing with the
current funds?