MEETING REPORT: Astrophysics Working Group

1997 September 11-12

The following is summary of the issues discussed at the AWG meeting that led to action items.

NASA GRANTS PROCESS:

Over the last few years, it has become apparent that difficulties have emerged in the NASA grants process. The most significant and obvious problems have been associated with tranferring much of the responsibility for issuing and monitoring of grants from NASA Headquarters to NASA Goddard.

Headquarters has appointed a "Grant Management Process Team (GMPT)" to investigate this matter and to recommend changes that will improve the system. The AWG was given the opportunity to relay comments to this team. On the basis of our discussions, the AWG made the following recommendations:

The GMPT should focus its attention on the procurement stages of the process. The peer review process seems to proceed reasonably well; the time between proposal submission and award notification is acceptable. What is currently NOT acceptable is the inordinate delay between notification and actual issuance of the award, which can now be in excess of several months.
We encourage the GMPT to solicit meaningful input (a) from university officials and principal investigators who are at the "receiving end" of the process and (b) from personnel in NASA projects who initiate the grants process.
Electronic proposal submission does not seem to be desirable at this time unless it can speed up the procurement process.
We encourage the GMPT to compare directly NASA procurement procedures with those of other Federal agencies (such as NSF) that issue grants more rapidly once a decision has been reached.

These recommendations have been made by the AWG in a letter sent to the GMPT through Howard Smith of Headquarters and through Mary Kicza of GSFC, a GMPT member. We have informed the GMPT that we are very interested in the outcome of this review, and wish to be kept informed. One of our members, David Burrows of Penn State, has agreed to attend the first public meeting of GMPT on 2 October.

OUTREACH

We often hear that astronomers need to do more towards gaining public support for astronomy and science in general and for NASA space science programs in particular. Dan Lester is assembling a group to work on this in a coherent and organized fashion. While this is not an official activity of the AWG, AWG members who are interested in these activities are encouraged to contact Dan, and we will periodically ask Dan to brief the AWG on his groups activities as an information item.

THE EXPLORER PROGRAM

An issue regarding the Explorer program was brought to our attention. The issue concerns the ESA flagship mission FIRST (Far-Infrared Space Telescope). NASA has an opportunity to participate in this mission as a minor partner ($75M level). In addition to the more obvious advantages of participation, the NASA contribution would involve some of the more interesting technical aspects, specifically, the primary mirror, cooler technology, and focal-plane instrumentation. At the present time, funding for US participation has not been identified. It has been suggested that FIRST could be allowed to compete for funds in response to the upcoming MIDEX AO as a Mission of Opportunity.

After some discussion, it was agreed by the AWG membership this question is more strategic than tactical, and we therefore will forward it to the SScAC with our comments.

Most members of the AWG are opposed to using Explorer funds to support FIRST, although at least a few members feel that FIRST is a sufficiently attractive opportunity that a one-time exception might be justifiable. Our discussion made the following points:

We regard the Explorer program, a very successful NASA level-of-effort program, as a key component of the NASA space science program: it provides an important means of developing new science and technology and for training space scientists. It should be fenced off as much as possible from other budgetary competitors.
The Explorer launch rate is already so low that the future of some university space-astronomy programs may be threatened. We must not let the total mission rate drop to the point where we no longer have viable space hardware programs in universities.
We believe that allowing more capable missions to compete for funds with Explorers is likely to further reduce the number of Explorers, which is undesirable for the reasons above.
We regard the FIRST mission as an excellent opportunity to propose an "international participation" continuing budget line that would allow NASA to participate in foreign missions as a minor partner (as was successfully done with ROSAT and ASCA, for example). Astro-F may present another opportunity in the near future.

We have passed these comments on to the SScAC through a letter to Roger Blandford (SEUS Subcommittee Chair) and David Black (Origins Subcommittee Chair).

NASA REVIEW PANELS

Hashima Hasan has asked the AWG to help her compile an up-to-date directory of potential peer reviewers for various NRAs and AOs. The AWG has agreed to do this, and a form requesting basic information on potential reviewers has been sent out to the AWG members.

SCIENCE RESULTS FROM NASA ASTRONOMY MISSIONS

Guenter Riegler has requested that the AWG help out in supplying him with scientific highlights from current NASA astronomy missions. These play an important and prominent role in his regular presentations to Associate Administrator Wes Huntress. Guenter says that he gets very little in astronomy, except from HST, and the perception of the astronomy missions suffers relative to other areas in Space Science. The AWG will encourage astronomy missions to supply Guenter with highlights on a regular basis. We will initiate this as part of our effort to establish ties with various user's groups.

MO&DA AND EXTENDED MISSIONS

The future of MO&DA funding remains a topic of deep concern to the AWG. We understand that new missions are of great importance to NASA and the space-science community, and we would not like to see a decrease in the rate at which new projects are initiated. However, we feel that the entire MO&DA issue should be looked at carefully by the SScAC and as part of the next Senior Review, which is currently slated for next summer.

Guenter Riegler tells us that the perception at Headquarters is:

MO&DA is in good shape relative to other parts of the NASA budget. However, the statistics are undoubtedly biased by HST and AXAF.
Extended phases of missions produce "more of the same", the science done does not change qualitatively.

The AWG wishes to make the following points:

We would encourage NASA to look carefully at each individual mission before establishing a mission lifetime. A three-year lifetime might be appropriate for some missions, but is far too short for others, especially those with broad scientific capabilities. Continuation of a mission should be based on an evaluation of science impact per unit cost (i.e., how much "bang for buck").
In at least some cases, the extended phases of missions are inexpensive compared to any other phase, and it is a false economy to terminate missions in this cheap but scientifically productive phase, indeed provided that the mission is still leading to high-impact forefront science.
Some of us are very disturbed at the absence of observing funds for missions in their "extended" phase. We believe that in some cases some of the best science occurs later in some missions when the "discovery" science has led us to ask more profound and sophisticated questions and when the true capabilities of the spacecraft are better understood. We are supportive of the Senior Review process that allows missions to compete for extensions on the basis of scientific merit, but there is still concern that the funds available to compete for are inadequate.
We also believe that it is important to maintain and enhance data analysis funding programs. It has also been suggested that these programs are important entry points to NASA Space Science for younger investigators, and that the relationship between NASA and younger scientists should be fostered through these programs.
We remain concerned that some missions currently in the queue (FUSE, for example) simply do not have sufficient MO&DA funding even in their primary operational phase.

NRAs

The discipline scientists have asked the AWG to review NRAs for unclear or ambiguous language. The AWG will form a committee to review recent NRAs. As a first step, we will look at the Appendices (program-specific parts) for the ATP, ADP, and LTSA programs. A new general NRA is being written at this time, and at the AWG will review this when it is ready.

[OSU Astronomy Home Page] [NASA AWG Home Page] [NASA AWG Meetings Page]

Updated 2 October 1997
peterson@astronomy.ohio-state.edu