Strategic Context for Gravitational Wave Astronomy

1. Strategic Context for Gravitational Wave Astronomy Patrick LooneyAssistant Director, Physical Science and EngineeringOffice of Science & Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the President

2. Political (Macro) Agency (Corporate) Research Program (Competitive) Internal Government Environment for Research

3. Political (Macro) Agency (Corporate) Research Program (Competitive) Internal Government Environment for Research

4. Scientific Push • (opportunities) • Bio (genomics, stem cells, etc), • Materials Science (“nano”) • IT • Intersection of Physics and Astronomy • Societal Pull • (demands) • {Homeland & National} Defense • Energy • Economic Security • Health • Environment • Food/Water • Exploration • R&D Environment • (capacity & infrastructure) • Capital (financial) • Technology (Research Tools) • People • Legal (Policy, Leg. Regulation) Political Factors Influencing the Direction of R&D

6. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 R&D/ Discretionary, Civilian Civilian R&D share, excluding Apollo R&D/ Discretionary, Total Total R&D share, excluding Apollo R&D as a Share of Discretionary Spending It’s approximately constant over the last 40 years!

8. Large Projects in Discovery-Oriented Physical Sciences Rules of Thumb How big is it? < $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 > $1B assume interagency and/or international planning & realization required definite high-level political interest

9. Trends at the Political Level (3 – 10 years) • R&D 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 R&D.

10. Political (Macro) Agency (Corporate) Research Program (Competitive) Internal Government Environment for Research Agencies: NASA, NSF, DOE

11. Agency Level Business Context Cabinet-Level Agencies (not all) Independent Agencies (not all)

12. Legend Informal Under development NSTC Director, OSTP Current NSTCStructure 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. Global Change Research National Security R&D 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 R&D 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 80’s and 90’s 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 R&D 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. Political (Macro) Agency (Corporate) Research Program (Competitive) Internal 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 Council’s 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 • What is the Dark Matter? • What is Dark Energy? • How did the Universe Begin? • Did Einstein have the last word on gravity? • What are the masses of the neutrinos and how have they shaped our universe? • How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating? • Are protons unstable? • What are new states of matter at exceedingly high density and temperature? (HED) • Are there additional space-time dimensions? • How were elements from iron to uranium made? • 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.

32. ONP OHEP NSF NASA NSAC HEPAP AAAC SEUS Neutrino Physics Accelerator Based High Energy Physics Dark Energy Dark Matter High Energy Particle Astrophysics 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?