Ok, I read the BEPAC full report, all 201 pages.
Interesting stuff, lots to glean from it.
First, Con-X community letter on Exploding Galaxies and other Catastrophysics, with some interesting comments from Prof Superwinds.
NASA HQ has still not responded to the BEPAC report. Way back when, my understanding was that HQ would issue a decision based on the report at a high level, that they have not done so is worrying.
Now the BEPAC report: the committee upped the cost estimates on all the projects.
SNAP claims TRL (Technology Readiness Level) 9 on the telescope...!
TRL 9 is "has flown already". Heritage is "classified". Hm...
The committee accepted a TRL > 6 - that is a huge cost lever, if they really are ready.
They also cost SNAP at a 3 year mission for MODA costs.
I think that if there is a 2m wide field optical telescope up there, with consumables on board and working detectors, then there is absolutely no possibility at all of it being shut down. So we'd be looking at $50-100 million p.a. for a few more years.
I also worry the R&D costs for the SNAP instruments are low-balled, but that is just based on gut feel and rumours, no actual hard data.
Anyway, the committee puts its thumb on the scales, not just for JDEM, but specifically for SNAP as the concept to be selected.
Since JWST is, honestly, not a Hubble replacement, I think a lot of people will take SNAP as a decent interim toy.
Biggest risk with SNAP is twofold: ground based programs underway could scoop the science - if 90% of the result is done from the ground before they fly, then getting to 99% is not nearly as interesting, not for $2G; secondly, the primary science is really a single number - if the answer is W=-1, W'=0 +/- then we have learned nothing much. If the answer is anything else it might be interesting, possibly very interesting.
Con-X really is in deep trouble - the committee did throw them a lifeline by suggesting that they are "beyond" Beyond Einstein, and should be revived as a separate line item in Astrophysics division within Science Missions Directorate.
After JWST.
Problem is, that HQ is not going to do that unless there is a LOT of new money - like $2-300 million per year for several years.
The Senator for Goddard and Maryland might be able to pull that off, though at what cost to other programs one hesitates to contemplate. We'll find out soon enough, I gather the letters are already gathering.
The US has about 2000 active x-ray astronomers, plus several hundred more in the student pipeline. A community built up over 30 odd years which is really at the peak of its expertise right now, and totally dependent on space observations.
May Chandra last a long time...
Big question is LISA: will NASA actually start piping development funding to LISA after the JDEM wedge opens - LISA(US) needs real funding, $20+ million per year to actually progress; the core team could be kept together with $6 million, but that would not lead to much actual building of stuff.
ESA may not wait, since they are already actually doing phase A actitivies and the Pathfinder is going to fly.
The LISA cost estimate by BEPAC seems high, they put the TRL lower than presented, maybe they don't trust European engineering (or Southwood's report was harsh, I've heard that ESA was blunt about the development status...).
I don't understand the cost estimate for LISA, it is significantly higher than any other I've heard - there are three spacecraft, true, but they are all identical, and there is only a single "instrument" in each spacecraft. Also, reading the report they seem skeptical that laser lock can be acquired over 5 million km - my impression is that the pointing to get that was not a concern, I even want to say "easy".
If we have to wait 15 more years for LISA to fly, it becomes difficult to sustain and build a science community around the mission; certainly without some flow of funding LISA science will drop off significantly. Which would be a shame, since the one constant I've heard about the process is that everyone likes LISA, but...
One feedback I got is that source rate uncertainty put some people off LISA, that is a solvable problem with a lot of calculation and a little bit of complementary observations, IF funding to do so is available (hint!).
Well, I guess we will find out the hard way over the next 2-3 years of R&A funding.
the Beyond Einstein Foundation Science program is gone, I'd be surprised to it back;
Long Term Space Astrophysics is also gone - question will be what directions the Astrophysics Theory Program panels get for the next couple of cycles.
- Log in to post comments
In our local member's talk, he mentioned that the committee spoke with upper echelon members of ESA directly.
There were aerospace folk on the committee, and I gather one of the big concerns about LISA was the thrusters. I also have heard rumors that the control of the "system" of the three spacecraft is challenging. It is not pointing a laser per se, but keeping the system in equilibrium is a challenging control theory problem (and one apparently NASA is funding a local Applied Math person to work on).
Changing the subject, I still want to know why Con-X got lumped in with those other four missions. That makes no sense.
On the 5m km laser lock, I don't know why it is, but I seem to remember learning from somewhere that the laser links between DSP satellites had never worked properly -- I mention it because those would seem to be the longest spacecraft to spacecraft laser links prior to this. Actually, a little googling shows that they spent a biullion on it and gave up at the end of the eighties, so tech experience maybe not comparable. SPOT 4 uses laser links, or at least can do so, and its obviously possible black programs do too.