Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 167
Appendixes
OCR for page 168
OCR for page 169
Appendix A
Statement Concerning a Space Platform
Much of modern astronomy must be done above the Earth's atmo-
sphere. Because the resources demanded by such investigations are
substantial, the Committee therefore devoted considerable discussion
to ways in which space science might be carried out with greater
flexibility and at lower cost. The currently developing concept of a
"space platform" offers considerable promise in these respects.
In addition to important aircraft and balloon facilities for obser-
vations above most of the Earth's atmosphere, there will be in op-
eration by the early 1980's three quite different types of space-science
vehicles, each providing observations on a different time scale.
Sounding rockets, the first of these to be developed, will still be
important for space exposures requiring only a few minutes' dura-
tion. They offer great flexibility in location, launch timing, and pay-
load content, also providing valuable opportunities for developing
satellite instrumentation and for training space scientists at low cost.
The Space Shuttle will powerfully augment U.S. space-astronomy
capability by offering orbital exposures on Spacelab ranging effec-
tively from hours to a few days, and it will also accommodate large
payloads; however, among the larger experiments, only a few (such
as SIRTF and SOT) can carry out their missions with maximum cost-
effectiveness within such relatively brief exposure times. Free-flying
satellites often present the most advantageous means for carrying
out major scientific programs, permitting dedicated, noninterfering
payloads and observing lifetimes ranging up to years. However, each
169
OCR for page 170
170
Appendixes
individual spacecraft is expensive and (except for major observatories
such as ST and AXAF) not normally accessible for refurbishment,
modification, or recovery after launch.
In terms of exposure times provided, there is a large gap in ca-
pability between Spacelab missions and those carried out on free-
flying satellites. On the other hand, many areas of space astronomy
require long-duration, relatively low-cost exposure, together with
large payload capacity and accessibility for replenishment of ex-
pendable materials, for repair or replacement of components, and
for return to Earth for reconfiguration.
A space platform could in principle supply these needs. Current
concepts envisage free-flying structures, designed for lifetimes of at
least a decade, consisting of a central module (containing control-
moment gyroscopes and communications equipment) attached to a
substantial solar-power unit. Appropriate docking fixtures would
permit the simple attachment of numbers of pallets functionally sim-
ilar to, if not identical to, those used for Spacelab experiments. Plat-
form extension arms could be used to reduce interference between
experiments, most of which would carry their own pointing systems
for the requisite precision. Shuttle flights, perhaps including some
scheduled for other purposes, would be able to visit the platform
several times a year to reprovision expendable materials and to repair
or replace experimental hardware.
A space platform appears to offer many advantages to other sci-
entific areas as well, such as biomedical research and materials pro-
cessing. Regardless of the influence of such other fields on possible
platform design, the Astronomy Survey Committee urges that at
least one line of space-platform evolution be guided strongly by the
needs of observational astronomy. Specifically, platforms optimized
for astronomical use must offer unmanned operation, simplicity and
economy of both construction and operation, and the convenient
servicing and replacement of experiments. The Committee recom-
mends that NASA continue to seek the advice and recommendations
of the scientific community throughout the development of a space
platform for observational astronomy.
Several areas of astronomy could profit substantially from plat-
forms dedicated entirely to their use. For example, a cluster of solar
experiments could fill a solar-oriented platform in polar orbit. An-
other set of experiments, with capability for imaging, spectroscopy,
and studies of time variation in the gamma-ray, x-ray, ultraviolet,
and infrared regions, would be well suited to a platform observatory.
Some types of astronomical research, such as cosmic-ray studies,
OCR for page 171
Appendixes
would be expected to place few constraints on platform characteristics
and the choice of neighboring experiments.
Various scientific study groups have already identified many as-
tronomical missions that would appear to be substantially more cost-
effective if flown on a space platform, rather than on Spacelab or a
free-flying satellite. The Committee commends NASA'S initiative in
studying the platform concept and emphasizes that these studies
should include, for astronomy, consideration of the simplest and
least expensive system able to carry out basic platform functions.
171
OCR for page 172
Appendix B
Organization, Education, and Personnel
During its study of the needs of astronomy and astrophysics for
the 1980's, the Astronomy Survey Committee devoted considerable
attention to the general structure and health of the profession, par-
ticularly through discussion of the recommendations of the Panel on
Organization, Education, and Personnel (OEP) presented in Vol-
ume 2.
An investigation of the trends that training and employment pat-
terns in astronomy will follow in the future led the Panel to its first
and most important recommendation, one that has also been adopted
by the Committee itself as a recommended new program for the
coming decade: a temporary program to maintain scientific expertise
at U.S. universities through a series of NSF "Astronomy Excellence
Awards" during the 1980's. A discussion of this recommendation
appears in Section C of Chapter 6.
The Astronomy Survey Committee also supports the other rec-
ommendations of the OEP Panel, which are discussed extensively in
the OEP Panel report and summarized below.
PERSONNEL
1. Minorities The Panel endorses the recommendations made
by the American Astronomical Society's Committee on Ethnic
Minorities to encourage young members of ethnic minorities to
study astronomy. Past progress in this area has been inade-
quate.
172
.
OCR for page 173
Appendixes
173
2. Women in Astronomy The Panel endorses the report of the
Committee on the Status of Women, accepted by the American
Astronomical Society in 1980. Women are still far from achiev-
ing equal status in astronomy.
3. Dual-Career Couples The Panel recommends appropriate
modification of remaining nepotism rules, the granting of per-
mission to scientists employed part-time to act as Principal In-
vestigators on contracts and grants, and the liberalization of in-
stitutional policies governing shared jobs.
EDUCATION
4. Public Communication
The Panel recognizes the need for as-
tronomers to devote a suitable portion of their time to the com-
munication of astronomical results to the general public, and
encourages them to do so. Such efforts need to be recognized
and encouraged also by department chairs and group leaders,
funding agencies, academic institutions, and professional organi-
zations as a necessary and beneficial scientific service activity.
5. Training of Astronomers The Panel recommends that the
training of astronomers include the acquisition of skills in such
specialized areas as electronics, electrooptical devices, mechanical
systems, computer software, and systems engineering; these skills
not only are relevant to the development of astronomical instru-
mentation but also make astronomy graduates more attractive to
industry. There is a perception that astronomers who develop
advanced astronomical instrumentation are sometimes not ade-
quately rewarded with respect to promotion and tenure. The
Panel recommends that astronomy departments take care to
eliminate any such inequity.
6. The Astronomical Community Teachers at two- and four-year
colleges, many of whom are not full-time astronomers, make a
significant contribution to astronomy education in the United
States. Amateur astronomers also contribute in substantial ways
to the position astronomy holds in the national esteem. The Panel
recommends that research astronomers make efforts to increase
communication with these additional members of the astronomi-
cal community, who contribute so much to the general health of
the field.
7. Small Telescopes Small telescopes, many associated with
university departments, are an important resource for U. S. as-
tronomy. Financial support for these telescopes (and associated
instrumentation) should be awarded on the basis of scientific
OCR for page 174
174
Appendixes
merit. In awarding funds, agencies should keep in mind the
many diverse needs served by these facilities.
ORGANIZATION
8. Classified Data and Technology The Panel recommends that
both NASA and NSF maintain a continuing awareness of the ben-
efits that would accrue to astronomy from the use of certain data
and technology that have been classified, inform the proper
government agencies of such benefits, and establish appropriate
mechanisms by which the astronomical community can partici-
pate in the procedures for identification and declassification of
such data and technology.
9. Access to Foreign Space Missions on the Basis of Merit The
Panel recommends that NASA work to promote competitive ac-
cess to foreign scientific satellite missions and institute policies and
budgetary mechanisms designed to encourage the flight of U.S.
experiments on foreign satellites.
10. Peer Review The Panel calls attention to the study by J.R.
Cole, L.C. Rubin, and S. Cole (Scientific American, October 1977,
p. 34), which "yielded little evidence in support of the main
criticisms that have been made of the peer-review system." The
Panel supports any measures that can be taken to streamline
proposal procedures but recognizes that increased accountability
requirements are beyond the direct control of the astronomical
community (e.g., E.B. Staats, Science 205, 18, July 6, 1979~. The
Panel also emphasizes the great importance of supporting proj-
ects whose results may lie far in the future and the particular
need for dialogue between the proposer and referees when in-
strumental proposals are under review. Finally, the Panel notes
the importance of attracting outstanding scientists to work within
the federal funding agencies and of opportunities for temporary
agency service under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. The
welfare of the entire astronomical community depends critically
on the wisdom and foresight of scientific decisions made within
federal agencies.
11. Advice to NASA and NSF The Panel recommends that the
agency that funds a scientific mission should take particular care
also to fund adequate analysis of all the meaningful data that
flow from that mission. Using the mechanisms for interagency
cooperation already in place, the agencies should identify the
mutual impact of new programs before those programs are initi-
ated and take appropriate action.
OCR for page 175
Appendixes
12. Private and State Support for Astronomy The Panel com-
mends the successful efforts of institutions that have done well
in this area. A number of state universities have been notably
successful in obtaining funds specifically designated for astron-
omy from their state legislatures. Private institutions have also
provided substantial support for astronomy; a number have been
particularly successful in maintaining strong research programs i
spite of the inroads of inflation.
13. Reduced Administrative Burdens and Multiyear Funding The
Panel urges funding agencies to switch, as rapidly as possible, to
longer-term (e.g., three-year) funding of research projects, with
reporting requirements reduced to submission of copies of pub-
lished papers, annual reports, or both. The Panel further urges
that simple mechanisms be instituted for consolidation of small
projects from a single agency.
175
OCR for page 176
Appendix C
Panels and Working Groups
PANEL ON HIGH ENERGY ASTROPHYSICS
GEORGE W. CLARK, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Chairman
C. STUART BOWYER, University of California, Berkeley
RICCARDO GlACCONT, Space Telescope Science Institute
AEEAN S. JACOBSON, let Propulsion Laboratory
WlEElAM L. KRAUSHAAR, University of Wisconsin
DIETRICH MUEEEER, University of Chicago
REUVEN RAMATY, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
DAVID SCHRAMM, University of Chicago
KIP THORNE, California Institute of Technology
CARE E. FICHTEE, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, ex officio
ARTHUR B. C. WALKER, Stanford University, ex officio
PANEL ON ULTRAVIOLET, OPTICAL, AND INFRARED
ASTRONOMY
E. JOSEPH WAMPEER, Un
Chairman
JACQUES BECKERS, University of Arizona
GEOFFREY BURBIDGE, Kitt Peak National Observatory
GEORGE CARRUTHERS, U. S. Naval Research Laboratory
JUDITH G. COHEN, California Institute of Technology
iversity of Californ
.
1a, Santa Cruz,
176
OCR for page 177
Appendixes
JOHN GALLAGHER, University of Illinois, Urbana
FRED GILEETT, Kitt Peak National Observatory
W. A. HILTNER, University of Michigan
WlEElAM F. HOFFMANN, University of Arizona
JEFFREY LINSKY, loins Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics and
the University of Colorado
J. BEVERLEY OKE, California Institute of Technology
VERA RUBIN, Carnegie Institution of Washington
RAINER WEISS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
SIDNEY C. WOLFF, University of Hawaii
DONALD YORK, Princeton University
Consultants
J. ROGER ANGEL, University of Arizona
JESSE GREENSTEIN, California Institute of Technology
LYMAN SPITZER, Princeton University
STEPHEN E. STROM, Kitt Peak National Observatory
PANEL ON RADIO ASTRONOMY
PATRICK THADDEUS, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University, Chairman
BERNARD BURKE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MARSHALL COHEN, California Institute of Technology
FRANK DRAKE, Cornell University
MORTON ROBERTS, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
JOSEPH TAYLOR, Princeton University
WILLIAM J. WELCH, University of California, Berkeley
DAVID WILKINSON, Princeton University
ROBERT WlESON, Bell Laboratories
Consultant
GEORGE A . DUCK, University of Colorado
PANEL ON THEORETICAL AND LABORATORY
ASTROPHYSICS
177
RICHARD A. McCRAY, loins Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics
and the University of Colorado, Chairman
W. DAVID ARNETT, University of Chicago
l
OCR for page 178
178
Appendixes
ROGER BLANDFORD, California Institute of Technology
ALEXANDER DALGARNO, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro-
physics
WILLIAM FOWLER, California Institute of Technology
WILLIAM PRESS, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
SCOTT D. TREMAINE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES G . WILElAMS, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Consultants
ARTHUR N. COX, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
KRIS DAVIDSON, University of Minnesota
VICTOR G. SZEBEHEEY, University of Texas, Austin
C. BRUCE TARTER, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
PANEL ON DATA PROCESSING AND COMPUTATIONAL
FACILITIES
EDWARD J. GROTH, Princeton University, Chairman
ROBERT M. HJELEMING, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
RICHARD B. LARSON, Yale University
JAYCEE M. MEAD, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
RICHARD H. MIEEER, University of Chicago
BERNARD OLIVER, Hewlett-Packard Corporation
STEPHEN E. STROM, Kitt Peak National Observatory
PAUL R. WOODWARD, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
PANEL ON ORGANIZATION, EDUCATION, AND
PERSONNEL
RICHARD C. HENRY, The Johns Hopkins University, Chairman
PETER B. BOYCE, American Astronomical Society
NOEL W. HINNERS, Smithsonian Institution
HENRY E. SHIPMAN, University of Delaware
ELSKE V.P. SMITH, Virginia Commonwealth University
DONNA E. WElSTROP, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Consultants
DONALD W. GOEDSMITH, Interstellar Media
MARTHA H. LILLER, Haward-Smithsonian Center for Astro-
physics
OCR for page 179
Appendixes
WAYNE OSBORN, Central Michigan University
R. MARCUS PRICE, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
WORKING GROUP ON SOLAR PHYSICS
ARTHUR B. C. WALKER, Stanford University, Chairman
JOHN W. HARVEY, Kitt Peak National Observatory
THOMAS E. HO~ZER, National Center for Atmospheric Research
JEFFREY E. LINSKY, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics and
the University of Colorado
EUGENE N. PARKER, University of Chicago
ROGER K. UERICH, University of California, Los Angeles
GERARD VAN HOVEN, University of California, Irvine
GEORGE L. WITHBROE, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro-
physics
Consultants
HUGH S. HUDSON, University of California, San Diego
STUART D . J O RDAN, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
MUKUE R. KUNDU, University of Maryland
JACK B. Z1RKER, Sacramento Peak Observatory
WORKING GROUP ON PLANETARY SCIENCE
179
MICHAEL J.S. BELTON, Kitt Peak National Observatory, Chairman
JOHN J. CALDWELL, State University of New York, Stony Brook
DONALD M. HUNTEN, University of Arizona
TORRENCE V. JOHNSON, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
DAVID MORRISON, University of Hawaii
TOBlAS C. OWEN, State University of New York, Stony Brook
STANTON J. PEALE, University of California, Santa Barbara
GORDON H. PETTENGILE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES B. POEEACK, NASA Ames Research Center
WORKING GROUP ON GALACTIC ASTRONOMY
ROBERT D. GEHRZ, University of Wyoming, Chairman
DAVID BLACK, NASA Ames Research Center
W. BUTLER BURTON, University of Minnesota
DUANE F. CARBON, Kitt Peak National Observatory
JUDITH G. COHEN, California Institute of Technology
OCR for page 180
180
Appendixes
PIERRE DEMARQUE, Yale University
FREDERICK K. LAMB, University of Illinois, Urbana
BRUCE MAROON, University of Washington, Seattle
PHILIP SOLOMON, State University of New York, Stony Brook
SIDNEY VAN DEN BERGH, Dominion Astrophysical Observatory
PETER O. VANDERVOORT, University of Chicago
Consultants
RICHARD A. McCRAY, loins Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics
and the University of Colorado
CHRISTOPHER F. McKEE, University of California, Berkeley
LEONARD SEARLE, Carnegie Institution of Washington
WORKING GROUP ON EXTRAGALACTIC ASTRONOMY
S. M. FABER, University of California, Santa Cruz, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER F. McKEE, University of California, Berkeley
FRAZER OWEN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
P. JAMES E. PEEBLES, Princeton University
JOSEPH SILK, University of California, Berkeley
HARVEY TANANBAUM, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro-
physics
ALAR TOOMRE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES W. TRURAN, University of Illinois, Urbana
RAY J. WEYMANN, University of Arizona
JAMES E. GUNN, Princeton University, ex officio
JEREMIAH OSTRIKER, Princeton University, ex officio
Consultant
BEATRICE M. TINSLEY, Yale University
WORKING GROUP ON RELATED AREAS OF SCIENCE
JAMES E. GUNN, Princeton University, Chairman
DOUGLAS EARDLEY, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro-
physics
PETER OILMAN, National Center for Atmospheric Research
RUSSELL M. KULSRUD, Princeton University
DAVID PINES, University of Illinois, Urbana
OCR for page 181
Appendixes
GERALD J. WASSERBURG, California Institute of Technology
WILLIAM D. WATSON, University of Illinois, Urbana
STEVEN WEINBERG, Harvard University
STAN E. WOOSLEY, University of California, Santa Cruz
WORKING GROUP ON ASTROMETRY
CART WESTERHOUT, U. S. Naval Observatory, Chairman
HEINRICH K. ElCHHORN, University of Florida, Gainesville
GEORGE D. GATEWOOD, Allegheny Observatory
JAMES HUGHES, U.S. Naval Observatory
WlEElAM H. JEFFERYS, University of Texas, Austin
IVAN R. KING, University of California, Berkeley
WlEElAM F. VAN AETENA, Yale University
WORKING GROUP ON THE SEARCH FOR
EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE
HARLAN J. SMITH, University of Texas, Austin, Chairman
FRANK DRAKE, Cornell University
JAMES E. GUNN, Princeton University
DAVID HEESCHEN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
NOEL W. HINNERS, Smithsonian Institution
JEREMIAH OSTRIKER, Princeton University
PATRICK THADDEUS, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University
CHARLES H. TOWNES, University of California, Berkeley
BENJAMIN M. ZUCKERMAN, University of Maryland
Consultants
GEORGE D. GATEWOOD, Allegheny Observatory
MICHAEL HART, Trinity University, San Antonio
MICHAEL D. PAPAGlANNIS, Boston University
181
OCR for page 182
Appendix D
Abbreviations Used in Text
AAS American Astronomical Society
ASO Advanced Solar Observatory (in space)
AXAF Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility
CCD Charge-coupled device
CES Committee on Earth Sciences (SSB)
COBE Cosmic Background Explorer satellite
COMPLEX Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (SSB)
CSAA Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (SSB)
cssP Committee on Solar and Space Physics (SSB)
EOP Experiment of Opportunity Program (NASA)
EUVE Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer satellite
GRIST Grazing Incidence Solar Telescope
GRO Gamma Ray Observatory
HEAO High Energy Astronomical Observatory
IRAS Infrared Astronomy Satellite (Explorer)
ISPM International Solar Polar Mission
lUE International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite
KAO Kuiper Airborne Observatory
EDR Large Deployable Reflector (in space; infrared/submilli
meter)
MMT Multiple-mirror telescope (optical/infrared)
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBS National Bureau of Standards
182
OCR for page 183
Appendixes A 183
NRC National Research Council
NSF National Science Foundation
NIT New Technology Telescope (optical/infrared, ground
based)
OEP Organization, Education, and Personnel (Panel)
OSSA Office of Space Science and Applications (NASA)
PI Principal Investigator
SET! Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
STRTF Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility
SOT Solar Optical Telescope (Space Shuttle facility)
SSB Space Science Board
SSXTF Solar Soft X-Ray Telescope Facility
ST Space Telescope (optical/ultraviolet)
STSC] Space Telescope Science Institute
VLA Very Large Array (radio telescope)
VERB Very Long Baseline
VERB Array Very-Long-Baseline Array (of radio telescopes)
VERB! Very-long-baseline interferometry
XTE X-Ray Timing Explorer satellite
OCR for page 184
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nasa goddard
