Lessons Learned from Past & Current ESA-NASA Collaborations

NRC Committee on NASA Participation in Euclid January 2011

George Helou IPAC, Caltech

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-1

OUTLINE

Question: What are the successes and failures of previous missions where NASA astrophysics has contributed to an ESA mission (ISO, Herschel, Planck)? u Study Cases: v Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) v Spitzer Space Telescope v Herschel Space Telescope v Planck Surveyor

Question: What are your recommendations for the framework for US role in Euclid? u Suggestions for Euclid Participation

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-2

IRAS: First mid-to-far-IR All-Sky Survey

u IRAS was the first IR all-sky survey, at 12, 25, 60 and 100µm: Si and Ge photo-conductors u Collaboration between US, Netherlands, UK, 1983 Main data products: u Point Source Catalog ~1 Jy sensitivity u Faint Source Catalog, a few times deeper u All-Sky Image Atlas at 4΄ resolution u On-demand co-added survey data v Compact sources v Resolution enhancement

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-3

ISO: First Pointed IR Observatory in Space

u Four versatile instruments, 2 imagers, 2 spectrometers, covering 3-240µm: Si, Ge photoconductors (1995-98) u ESA mission with minor NASA, ISAS participation

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-4

Spitzer: the NASA IR Great Observatory u Three instruments, imaging at {3.6, 4.5, 6.8, 8}, {24, 70 and 160} µm, 1 spectrometer 5-38µm, SED mode 60-120µm: Si, Ge photoconductors u NASA mission, August 2003 – May 2009 cold u Warm mission since 2009: 3.6, 4.5 µm imaging

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-5

[OIII] 88 µm Herschel: Cornerstone FIR/Submm Observatory z = 3.04 u Three instruments: imaging at {70, 100, 160}, {250, 350 and 500} µm; spectroscopy: grating [55-210]µm, FTS [194-672]µm, Heterodyne [157-625]µm; bolometers, Ge photoconductors, SIS mixers; 3.5m primary at ambient T u ESA mission with significant NASA contributions, May 2009 – February 2013 cold

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-6

ISO: Deal and Outcome u ISO was an ESA-only mission, with some US individual participation as co-investigators on instrument teams and on the ISO Science Team, and some “scientific associates” v Individual access to Guaranteed Time u Late-breaking agreement: DSN time for 30min/orbit (~30min/day) of Guaranteed Time, plus access to Open Time competitions v ISAS funded additional operations shift, also for 30min/orbit of GT v NASA & ISAS named 1 representative each to the ISO Science Team v Two or three US-based scientists were invited to join the TAC u NASA competed its GT independently, selecting 4 Key Projects u In Open Time, the US community was allocated ~30% of the time (PI), and participated on many more selected proposals u Net result: US community was responsible for ~25% of ISO time v NASA Astrophysics investment was all in Data Analysis funding and community support at IPAC v Data quality issues, slightly ameliorated by IPAC help (late arrival)

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-7

Spitzer: Deal and Outcome u Spitzer is a NASA Great Observatory. u Spitzer TAC and review committees included non-U.S. scientists as a matter of course, and all calls were open worldwide u European scientists (PI’s) were responsible for ~20% of Open Time on Spitzer, and participated on many more selected proposals

u NB: ISO-SIRTF debate was very similar to XMM-AXAF debate

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-8

Herschel: Deal and Outcome (1) u Herschel is an ESA Cornerstone Mission (~B$ class) with significant NASA contributions (10-15% of mission cost up to launch) u Community advocacy for Herschel-like mission originated as a Transatlantic movement, and ESA moved on it first v Instrument proposals to ESA had US co-I’s and components u NASA primary H/W participation was in enabling detector technologies for 2 instruments v Bolometers and amplifiers assembly for SPIRE, plus expertise v SIS mixers and other components for HIFI, plus expertise u Instrument Team participation results in access to GT u Two US-based mission scientists and optical system scientist were selected in open competition, with additional access to GT

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-9

Herschel: Deal and Outcome (2) u Aside from the above, ESA and NASA exchanged LoA: v NASA provides Science Operations expertise and software (Spitzer heritage), shares any s/w or documentation developed at NHSC/IPAC v NASA provides resident astronomer at Herschel Science Center in Spain v ESA provides “appropriate US scientist representation on HOTAC” v ESA provides NHSC with full access, as “integral part of the Herschel Science Ground System” v NB: ESA-NASA reciprocally open calls for proposals are standard u Net result: Open Time calls on Herschel have resulted in U.S. PI’s carrying about half the Open Time, in addition to GT participation v Additional participation by US co-I on ~35% of Open Time v A third of all Key Projects had U.S. PI’s and all had U.S. participation u Data quality issues are much less severe, and NHSC has much more insight, ability to help

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-10

Planck: State-of-the-Art CMB+Astrophysics Survey

u Two instruments, nine bands: HFI {857, 545, 353, 217, 143, 100} GHz, LFI {70, 44 and 30} GHz; bolometers cooled to 100mK, HEMT u ESA mission with significant NASA contributions, May 2009 – January 2012 cold; LFI on-going

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-11

Planck: Deal and Outcome (1) u Planck is an ESA Mid-Sized Mission with significant NASA contributions (10-15% of mission cost up to launch) u Community advocacy for Planck-like mission originated as a Transatlantic movement, and ESA moved on it first v Instrument proposals to ESA had US co-I’s and components u NASA primary H/W participation was in enabling new technologies v Spider-web bolometers and amplifiers for HFI, including polarization- sensitive bolometers, plus expertise v HEMT radio amplifiers for LFI, plus expertise v Hydrogen sorption coolers to get down from passive (~50K) to ~20K u Two US members on the Science Team, ~80 US Planck scientists v Full access to the data, software, discussions by US Planck scientists

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-12

Planck: Deal and Outcome (2) u MoU between NASA and ESA v NASA provides engineering support for delivered H/W v NASA provides support for mission design & planning, data analysis u US Planck scientists account for 20-25% of data analysis activity v Lead on several activities (in CMB, SZ, etc), and are part of all activities v Have led many papers in last few years v Planck key papers will be by “Planck Collaboration, authors-alphabetical” u NASA first visible contribution was in Early-Release Compact Source Catalog (ERCSC), and help with ESZ, ECC u ERCSC + ESZ have motivated >60 papers from non-Planck scientists since their release in January 2011 v First look at all-sky catalog at λ>300μm, ~104 sources, very fast release u The Planck Archive will have tremendous potential v US version of Archive will respond to community needs for tools

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-13

Summary: Lessons Learned u NASA and ESA can both fund, build and operate major missions v Euclid will happen u ISO did not kill SIRTF, XMM did not kill AXAF v Euclid by itself will not kill WFIRST, nor will NASA buying into Euclid u The unique capabilities of the U.S. are in leading-edge technologies, but more especially in human (and institutional) resources v If the community has access & support, it will get its share of the science u Good relations at working level are crucial, so create a robust high- level framework for participation, and let working relations develop: v Among scientists: build a science community v Among instrument/payload builders: optimize interfaces locally v Among Science Centers: learn by doing, add value for all users u Critical Mass of participation is important: v Single US scientist on Science Team is thin; <10% share is risky

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-14

Suggestions for a Framework for Participation in Euclid (1) u NASA & ESA would agree on H/W, S/W, Ops contributions u NASA & ESA would agree on seats on the Science Team, rules for individual participation in Consortium v This guarantees data access, input on decisions, insight v Let Science Team address items such as publication policy, authorship rules, mechanics of data access u ESA sets policy for public access to data; NASA reviews & concurs v Astrophysics vs. Dark Energy use, schedule and depth of access, etc v Parallel science archives (U.S. and EU) highly desirable: Facilitating Dark Energy research, other archival research by non-Euclid U.S. scientists u These agreements should be designed to allow the US community to compete on an equal footing, both within Euclid Consortium and in the community at large

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-15

Suggestions for a Framework for Participation in Euclid (2) u In order to enable the U.S. Community to seize the opportunity, NASA just needs to follow its tradition of supporting research: u NASA would fund selected Science Team members to set up teams capable of exploiting data in a timely fashion v This was already planned in the earlier NASA solicitation for Euclid u NASA would provide data analysis funding to community at-large u NASA would establish US Science Center to support all Euclid users v Selected Science Teams, individual Consortium members, and community at-large v This Center would also provide NASA’s S/W contributions to the mission v NASA Herschel Science Center works well in this dual capacity, and is a valuable resource for the community and for the mission, i.e. ESA perceives it as a NASA contribution

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-16

Suggestions for a Framework for Participation in Euclid (3) u U.S. hardware contribution is only one leg. Science data system participation is critical to enable full science returns v Participation in science data system entails meaningful involvement in mission development, which leads to much better insight, influence and access for US community v NASA emphasis on data quality to enable timely science is unequalled u E.g. If detectors are being considered, their characterization and data reduction pipelines should be included as U.S. deliverables v However, even without such a scenario, participation in the science data system will benefit the science across the board, and help build good relations with ESA and Consortium v “Learn by doing” approach (e.g. ISO) v “Share the legacy” approach (e.g. SPOT for Herschel)

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-17

“Where I’m coming from”

u Served as NASA representative on ISO Science Team, led one of the U.S. Key Projects on ISO (resulted in ~20 refereed papers) u Co-I on original proposals that grew into Herschel and Planck v Active Planck Core Team Scientist, member of Editorial Board v Advised NASA on Herschel participation agreement v Often attends Herschel Science Team meetings “as observer” u As IPAC Director v Responsible for NASA Herschel Science Cente v Responsible for Planck ERCSC generation, and for U.S. Planck Archive construction

NRC Committee on Euclid Participation, January 2011 Helou-18