nasa abandoning astrophysics

NASA abandoning astrophysics

One of the many benefits of being a member of the American

Astronomical Society is automatic subscription to the AAS Newsletter,

which is filled with such wonderful things that the current issue is

not put online, so that only official members may read it. This

month's issue contained a column by new AAS president Robert Kirshner,

who talked about the new (as of this summer) NASA Mission Statement.

Some of Kirshner's comments:

... it would be a mistake to lose sight of even bigger changes

taking place at NASA. NASA's new focus on solar system exploration

is expressed in their mission statement and a new set of "Level 0"

requirements (even more fundamental than Level 1!) articulated by

the NASA Executive Council. You can read them for yourself [here].

You might find it odd, as I did,that there is no mention of the

kind of science that has proved so successful for NASA in exploring

the universe beyond the solar system, with HST and smaller but

fantastically important missions like WMAP. These basic

requirements don't suggest that studying black holes, gravitational

waves, dark energy, or even the assembly of galaxies at the dawn of

time must be part of NASA's portfolio.

[...]

But these requirements are aimed quite sharply at something else:

"extending human presence across the solar system and beyond." Many

AAS members will see themselves as part of that presence, but

having so much astronomy compressed into "and beyond" makes me

wonder if the ground has not shifted beneath our feet. The whole

elaborate process of Decadal reports, followed by careful working

out of roadmaps with lots of community input through a vigorous

advisory mechanism has been a good thing for the astronomical

community, and a good thing for NASA. This new change in direction

doesn't seem to involve any of those sources of wise counsel. I

think we should pay attention to this, talk to our colleagues at

NASA, and try to understand what is happening. We live in

interesting times.

Couldn't have said it better myself (and I have tried). It's worth

taking a look at those "requirements" in the mission statement -- not

a single reference to the universe outside the solar system. When I

give colloquia, I like to say that the 1990's will go down in human

history as the decade in which we figured out what the universe was

made of, pinning down the cosmic inventory of ordinary matter, dark

matter, and dark energy. Those determinations were due in large part

to observations by NASA missions of galaxies, supernovae, and the

cosmic microwave background. Think that stuff is interesting? Hope you

enjoyed it, since we might not get any more.

When Sean O'Keefe became the new NASA administrator, scientists were

cautiously optimistic -- he was not a scientist himself, but had a

reputation as a manager and a results-oriented kind of guy, and

astrophysics was the one thing at NASA that consistently got great

results (as opposed to, let's just say, the International Space

Station). We were wrong. And as Kirshner says, there is a frustrating

move away from a system of rigorous study and sensitivity to community

input -- a move which, if nothing else, fits in well with the

overarching philosophy of the current administration.

I'm not sure if it's too late to stop NASA from completely abandoning

astrophysics. But any time you get the chance, make noise about it to