Click for next page ( 168


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 167

OCR for page 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167
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 167