Astro2020 Decadal Survey

Astro2020 Decadal Survey
Name	Astro2020 Decadal Survey
Other names	Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2020
Country	United States
Published	2021
Publisher	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Astro2020 Decadal Survey

The Astro2020 Decadal Survey was a community-driven report produced under the aegis of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that set priorities for United States planetary science, astrophysics, and astronomy for the 2020s; it followed prior decadal efforts such as the Decadal Survey (astronomy), building on recommendations from the 1972 Space Science Board era and interacting with agencies like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy. The report synthesized input from conferences including American Astronomical Society, workshops connected to European Southern Observatory and Square Kilometre Array planning, and testimony from scientific leaders such as those involved with the James Webb Space Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory programs.

Background and Motivation

The decadal process originated in recommendations by the National Research Council and was institutionalized after reports like the Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics 2010; it responded to strategic priorities shaped by missions including Voyager 1, Pioneer 10, Kepler spacecraft, and facilities like the Very Large Telescope complex and the Arecibo Observatory. Motivations included prioritizing large projects analogous to the Large Binocular Telescope, addressing scientific goals exemplified by discoveries from COBE and the Planck mission, and reconciling community needs voiced at meetings of the International Astronomical Union and panels such as those convened by the Goddard Space Flight Center.

Committee and Process

The survey was conducted by the Board on Physics and Astronomy under the National Academies umbrella with a steering committee chaired by senior scientists who had previously served on advisory bodies like the NASA Advisory Council and the NSF Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate panels; members included representatives from institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Princeton University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Cambridge, and Stanford University. The process incorporated white papers submitted by groups from organizations like the Kavli Foundation, the Simons Foundation, the American Astronomical Society, and consortia behind projects like WFIRST (later renamed), LUVOIR concept teams, and the Habitable Exoplanet Observatory proposals; community engagement occurred through town halls at American Geophysical Union and sessions aligned with the Royal Astronomical Society meetings. Peer review invoked methodologies practiced by the National Science Board and leveraged expertise from panels analogous to those used by European Space Agency advisory committees.

Key Recommendations

The survey recommended a balanced portfolio including a highest-priority large strategic mission comparable in scale to past Flagship missions such as Mars Science Laboratory and Cassini–Huygens, mid-scale programs inspired by projects like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope planning and ground-based initiatives akin to the Thirty Meter Telescope and the Extremely Large Telescope. It emphasized investments in exoplanet characterization driven by results from Kepler and Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, cosmology informed by Sloan Digital Sky Survey and Dark Energy Survey, and time-domain astronomy following the model of the Zwicky Transient Facility and Large Synoptic Survey Telescope development. The report prioritized sustaining facilities including the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, strengthening instrumentation programs similar to those supported by the National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation grants, and initiating technology development pathways comparable to those that enabled James Webb Space Telescope optics and cryogenic systems.

Implementation and Funding Implications

Implementing the survey required coordination among NASA, NSF, and the Department of Energy Office of Science, with budgetary impacts comparable to appropriation decisions overseen by the United States Congress and committees such as the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Funding trajectories referenced cost and schedule lessons from James Webb Space Telescope and programmatic models from the Hubble Space Telescope servicing era; the survey recommended phased investments, new funding lines resembling the Mid-Scale Innovations Program, and contingency reserves informed by historical analyses from the Government Accountability Office. International partnerships with agencies including European Space Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Canadian Space Agency, and Australian Research Council were highlighted to distribute cost and share technical expertise as with the International Space Station and the Gaia (spacecraft) collaboration.

Impact on Astronomy and Astrophysics

The survey shaped mission selections and facility upgrades much as prior decadal reports influenced projects like Spitzer Space Telescope and Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope; it guided the prioritization of next-generation telescopes and instruments that affect research at universities such as University of Chicago and Caltech, national laboratories like Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory, and observatories including Palomar Observatory and Mauna Kea Observatories. Its emphasis on workforce development and diversity echoed initiatives from the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program and professional societies including the American Astronomical Society and the American Physical Society, thereby influencing graduate programs at institutions like Columbia University and University of Michigan and training pipelines linked to the National Optical Astronomy Observatory.

Reactions and Criticism

Reactions spanned endorsements from leaders at University of Arizona and Space Telescope Science Institute to critiques in commentary by stakeholders advocating alternative priorities reminiscent of debates over the Thirty Meter Telescope versus smaller-scale investments. Criticism focused on cost realism drawing on precedents from James Webb Space Telescope budget overruns, concerns about cadence and responsiveness similar to debates around the Decadal Survey 2010 recommendations, and equity issues in resource allocation raised by representatives of the National Society of Black Physicists and the Society of Women Engineers. International partners including European Southern Observatory and CERN offered perspectives on collaboration models, while policy analysts from the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute discussed trade-offs between flagship missions and distributed programmatic funding.

Category:Astrophysics planning