Patrick%20Looney%20Assistant%20Director,%20Physical%20Science%20and%20Engineering%20Office%20of%20Science%20

1
Strategic Context for Gravitational Wave Astronomy
Patrick LooneyAssistant Director, Physical
Science and EngineeringOffice of Science
Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the
President
2
Government Environment for Research
3
Government Environment for Research
4
Political Factors Influencing the Direction of
RD
5
(No Transcript)
6
RD as a Share of Discretionary Spending Its
approximately constant over the last 40 years!
7
(No Transcript)
8
Large Projects in Discovery-Oriented Physical
Sciences Rules of Thumb How big is it? lt
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 gt
1B assume interagency and/or international
planning realization required definite
high-level political interest
9

• Trends at the Political Level (3 10 years)
• RD 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 RD.

10
Government Environment for Research
Agencies NASA, NSF, DOE
11
Agency Level Business Context
Cabinet-Level Agencies (not all)
Independent Agencies (not all)
12
Current NSTCStructure
NSTC Director, OSTP
Committee on Environment Natural Resources
Committee on Science
Committee on Technology
Committee on Homeland and National Security
WH Olsen NSF Colwell NIH Zerhouni
WH Russell DOC Bond
WH Olsen DOC Lautenbacher EPA Gilman
WH Dale DOD Wynne DHS McQueary
Research Business Models
Technology Dev.
Education Workforce Dev.
National Security RD
Global Change Research
Large Scale Science
Networking Information Technology
Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures
Air Quality Research
Aquaculture
Disaster Reduction
Nanoscale Science, Eng. Technology
International
Human Subjects Research
Ecosystems
WMD Medical Countermeasures
IWG Physics of the Universe
Aerospace
Toxics Risks
IWG Plant Genome
Standards
Water Availability Quality
IWG Dom. Animal Genomics
IWG Earth Observations
RD Investment Criteria Research Misconduct Policy
Infrastructure
Biotechnology
IWG on Dioxin
Oceans
Social, Behavioral Econ.
Health and the Environment.
13

• 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)

14
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 80s and 90s enabling new LSS
  Projects.

15

• 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 RD funding. Re-adjudication of
  decisions and straight-up earmarking of
  facilities.

16

• 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.

17
Government Environment for Research
18
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.

19
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.
20
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
• 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 Councils 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.

21

• 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)

22

• 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

23
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
24
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?

25
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.

26
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

27
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.

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
Emerging Scheme for Coordination of Advisory
Committee Activities
33
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?

34
(No Transcript)