A Strategy for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy

Here the panel summarizes its major recommendations and states priorities for NSF funding of OIR astronomy. In doing so, the panel is mindful of the uncertain prospects for growth of the NSF astronomy budget. The panel is confident, however, that the enormous recent increase in the power of ground-based OIR telescopes to enable major advances in our understanding of the universe, together with major capital investment in new telescopes, both national and private, makes a strong case for a modest increase in the NSF astronomy budget.

The panel recommends a strategy in which NSF can, over the next several years, increase its annual funding of OIR astronomy by approximately $10 M in 1994 dollars. This increase is essential to properly support Gemini, the instrumentation program for national and private observatories, and the continuation of a strong program at the existing NOAO facilities. With this increment, NSF funds would be leveraged by the enormous nonfederal investment in OIR facilities in the past decade, allowing these new telescopes to reach their full scientific potential while providing access for all astronomers.

If such a boost to the NSF's astronomy base budget is not possible, then first priority must go to support of the Gemini operations. If no additional funding is added to the astronomy base budget, then the initiation of Gemini operations would have to come at the expense of other existing national OIR facilities, particularly those that are the least unique. This allocation of resources would cause many excellent astronomers to become disenfranchised, the field would suffer from the loss of their expertise, and educational opportunities for future generations would be diminished.

IV above details recommendations for a new strategy for the operation of NOAO, which the panel recommends regardless of the budget future. The general recommendations below are a restatement of many of these guiding priorities.

If the NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences must operate under level funding, even with the completion of the Gemini telescopes, then there will be no alternative to a major cutback of operations and closing or privatizing of existing facilities. Gemini will be a leading scientific facility and is an international commitment that must be supported.

In this no-growth scenario, NOAO must absorb the full $8 M U.S. cost of the Gemini project (including both the $5.5 M for the U.S. share of IGP operations and the $2.5 M cost of providing the resources for U.S. access to Gemini).

Given the unique access to the southern skies offered by CTIO, and the duplication of many of KPNO's capabilities in the independent observatories in the Northern Hemisphere, higher priority must be given to continued operations at CTIO. At KPNO, the WIYN telescope and limited operations of the 4-meter telescope could continue, but probably all other telescopes, as well as the bulk of the support operations in Tucson, would likely have to be closed. Whatever remained open at KPNO would have to operate with a reduced support staff, in a much less hand-holding mode of operation. The central services provided by NOAO to its three observatories, KPNO, CTIO, and NSO, would effectively cease.

NOAO would have to sharply restrict its instrumentation program. Moreover, it would be impossible for NOAO to build any new- technology telescopes, even through partnerships. Astronomers who depend on KPNO would find that their access to telescopes would be sharply curtailed and the competition much more intense than it is now. An example of collateral damage under this scenario is that science education at universities would suffer because many professors would not be able to maintain and engage students in active research programs in OIR astronomy. Another major casualty would be the loss of the internship program for undergraduate and graduate students.

The panel's priorities for NOAO operations are clear:

1. Gemini operations,
2. Continued operations at CTIO,
3. Operations of WIYN,
4. Continued operations of the 4-meter telescope at KPNO,
5. Other unique instrumentation development at Tucson, and
6. All other NOAO operations.

In a very limited budget, the panel recommends cutting from the bottom of this list while preserving the functions above. (Instrument upgrades are implied in priorities 1 to 4.) Uniform cutting of all services now provided by NOAO is specifically not an acceptable option. The panel estimates that even in the worst budget situation, NOAO would have sufficient funds for priorities 1 to 4.

The panel appreciates that substantial savings cannot be made simply by closing small telescopes, as these facilities cost very little to operate. Only by closing or drastically scaling back an entire observatory can one expect to save funds of the magnitude required in a flat- budget scenario. The panel's priority is to keep the unique facilities open if at all possible, and to concentrate cutbacks on the downtown Tucson operations, while at the same time reducing the personnel at KPNO to a minimum level. Such cutbacks would come at a scientific price, such as the loss of capacity to immediately repair equipment that fails for one reason or another. (Scheduling of longer runs and service observing can mitigate this loss, however.) In any case, it is better to have limited service than no service at all. The panel is further mindful that telescopes other than those owned by NOAO operate on Kitt Peak and also benefit from the infrastructure provided by NOAO. The panel, under even the worst budget scenario, does not recommend that KPNO be closed.

Beyond stating these scientific priorities for NOAO, the panel does not attempt to provide a detailed road map or model for NOAO to reduce operations costs as required. That is the proper responsibility of NOAO management.

With a truly flat budget, NSF would not be able to provide new funds for facility instruments at independent observatories, but would need to initiate the new program at a modest level within the existing budget of the NSF instrumentation grants program. The national access to independent observatories enabled by this funding level would not begin to substitute for the loss of access at KPNO.

Finally, in this scenario, the sharp reductions in activity at KPNO and in the level of support of engineering and technical services, and the overall pressures on the NOAO budget, would be certain to have a negative impact on support for the scientific activities of the National Solar Observatories.

If NSF can increase its annual funding for OIR astronomy by part, but not all, of the $10 M recommended, the panel envisages continuing fierce competition for resources between the independent observatories, which need instrumentation funds, and NOAO, which must provide the U.S. interface to Gemini, support its observers, and strive to maintain scientific leadership in some areas. How should NSF decide to distribute its limited funds in the face of such competition?

The first priority of any boost to the NSF astronomy base budget must go to Gemini operations, as discussed above. Any boost beyond the amount payable to IGP operations would be available for the facility instrumentation program at the independent observatories outlined above.

Although funding of IGP operations will not rise to the stationary level until 2003, the panel recommends an immediate boost to the NSF astronomy base budget to allow augmentation of the facilities instrumentation program outlined above. This would give the NSF time to judge the effectiveness of the program and to make mid-course corrections, if needed, well before Gemini operations begin.

In a modest growth scenario, the panel assumes that, by 2003, NSF will be able to augment its annual budget for OIR astronomy by $5.5 M to cover the U.S. obligation to the IGP, so that NOAO funding can remain level in constant dollars. Second, the panel assumes that NSF will be able to augment its annual budget for facility instruments at independent observatories by $4.5 M/year, beginning almost immediately. Thus, the panel assumes that NSF will be able to increase its net annual funding of OIR astronomy by approximately $10 M by 2003.

With such an increase, the nation would have a very healthy and productive infrastructure for OIR astronomy. The panel believes that NOAO can ensure that the United States will gain full scientific value from the Gemini telescopes and assert leadership in OIR astronomy. To do so, NOAO must further focus its resources on Gemini science and other areas where it can excel. As discussed above, even in this optimistic scenario NOAO cannot satisfy all the diverse needs of the nation's astronomers, and competition for time on NOAO telescopes may become even more intense. However, with bold and frugal management, combined with external partnerships, NOAO will be able to exert leadership in instrumentation and will have a good chance to replace some of its older telescopes with powerful, well-instrumented new-technology telescopes.

Great scientific leverage will result from the augmented program to fund facility instruments for powerful new telescopes at independent observatories. Moreover, the national access time provided to astronomers through this program should mitigate the loss of observing options to astronomers who now depend primarily on NOAO for access to telescopes. These astronomers would enjoy a net gain in observing time and options if this program can be funded fully.

The strategy for growth recommended here is not lavish. The panel makes no recommendations for major new facilities that have not already been recommended by the AASC report and, in fact, are already under way. The $5.5 M cost to support operations of the IGP is modest given the $88 M capital investment by NSF. With level funding (excluding the IGP operations costs), NOAO management will be challenged to take on the new responsibility of the U.S. interface to Gemini, to build new facilities, and to maintain scientific leadership. The only new program recommended is the $4.8 M augmentation for instrumentation at independent observatories. That is conservative, too. The scientific opportunities presented by the new telescopes at independent observatories could easily justify a much greater investment by NSF.

The national time allocation committee that the panel recommends would enable astronomers to carry out, often for the first time, powerful coordinated and synoptic observing campaigns in support of space observations. Such programs are likely to spawn demand for new instruments (e.g., common, if not similar, imagers or polarimeters) on several telescopes so that data can be optimally matched. To realize these benefits, the panel recommends that NSF continue to work with NASA to develop a coordinated strategy for support of space astronomy missions by ground-based OIR telescopes. It would be appropriate for NASA to support a share of costs for instrument support and observer access in proportion to the annual national use of telescopes (national or private) in support of space observations.

The panel has outlined above three possible futures for OIR astronomy in the coming decade.

• In the most pessimistic scenario the panel recommends that the above listed cutbacks be applied to current NOAO operations in order to fund the Gemini operations.

• The panel strongly recommends that the NSF increase the base funding of the Division of Astronomical Sciences in order to cover the $5.5 M U.S. contribution to the international Gemini project operations budget.

• In a modest growth scenario, the panel recommends a $10 M/year increase to the astronomy base budget, which would support both the Gemini operations and the new facilities instrumentation program for the independent observatories.

The National Academies Home Page | NAP Home Page | Report Home Page