Astrophysics

Home , Explorers Program, Kepler (lunar crater), LISA Pathfinder, NuSTAR

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrophysics

Committee on NASA Science Paul Hertz Mission Extensions Director, Astrophysics Division NRC Keck Center Science Mission Directorate Washington DC @PHertzNASA February 1-2, 2016 Why Astrophysics?

Astrophysics is humankind’s scientific endeavor to understand the universe and our place in it.

1. How did our universe 2. How did galaxies, stars, 3. Are We Alone? begin and evolve? and planets come to be?

These national strategic drivers are enduring

1972 1982 1991 2001 2010 2 Astrophysics Driving Documents

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/documents 3 Astrophysics Programs

Physics of the Cosmos Cosmic Origins Exoplanet Exploration Program Program Program

1. How did our universe 2. How did galaxies, stars, 3. Are We Alone? begin and evolve? and planets come to be?

Astrophysics Explorers Program

Astrophysics Research Program

James Webb Space Telescope Program (managed outside of Astrophysics Division until commissioning) 4 Astrophysics Programs and Missions

Physics of the Cosmos Cosmic Origins Exoplanet Exploration Program Program Program

Chandra Hubble Spitzer Kepler/K2 XMM-Newton (ESA) Herschel (ESA) WFIRST Fermi SOFIA Planck (ESA) LISA Pathfinder (ESA) Astrophysics Explorers Program Euclid (ESA) NuSTAR Swift Suzaku (JAXA) Athena (ESA) ASTRO-H (JAXA) NICER TESS L3 GW Obs (ESA) 3 SMEX and 2 MO in Phase A

James Webb Space Telescope Program: Webb 5 Astrophysics Programs and Missions

Physics of the Cosmos Cosmic Origins Exoplanet Exploration Program Program Program

Missions in extended phase

James Webb Space Telescope Program: Webb 6 Astrophysics Mission Portfolio

• NASA Astrophysics seeks to advance NASA’s strategic objectives in astrophysics as well as the science priorities of the Decadal Survey in Astronomy and Astrophysics.

• In addition to space missions, the NASA Astrophysics portfolio includes basic research and technology development, development and stewardship of national capabilities for conducting space astrophysics, and suborbital investigations.

• Mission investment choices are informed by the Decadal Surveys, other NRC studies, and other science community input especially advisory committees and peer reviews.

7 SMD Decisional Process for Missions

SMD Science Management Council

SMD Program Management Council

Division Senior Review

KDP-A KDP-B KDP-C KDP-D KDP-E KDP-F

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Pre-Phase A System assembly, Phase E Phase F Concept & technology Preliminary design Final design & Concept studies integration, test, & Ops & sustainment Closeout development & tech completion fabrication launch

MCR SDR/MDR PDR CDR SIR LRR

SMD Science Management Council

SMD Program Management Council

Division Senior Review

KDP-A KDP-B KDP-C KDP-D KDP-E KDP-F

MCR SDR/MDR PDR CDR SIR LRR

Athena TESS ASTRO-H Herschel L3 GW Obs Webb NICER Kepler/prime WFIRST (Feb ‘16) Euclid Planck SMEX x 3 Suzaku MO x 2 Chandra, Fermi, Hubble, Kepler/K2, LISA Pathfinder, NuSTAR, SOFIA, Spitzer, Swift, XMM-Newton Missions in extended phase 9 Formulation Implementation Primary Ops XMM-Newton (ESA) CREAM (on ISS) Swift Extended Ops 12/10/1999 12/2016 11/20/2004

Fermi Euclid (ESA) 6/11/2008 2020

Hubble Kepler Spitzer 3/7/2009 ASTRO-H (JAXA) 4/24/1990 JWST 8/25/2003 2016 2018

Chandra 7/23/1999 NICER (on ISS) 8/2016 NuSTAR 6/13/2012 TESS Astrophysics 2017 Mission

LISA Pathfinder (ESA) SOFIA Portfolio 2016 12/3/2015 Full Ops 2014 10 Astrophysics Mission Portfolio

Astrophysics missions reflect the primary classes of SMD missions

• Strategic Missions – Initiated by NASA generally in response to recommendations in the Decadal Survey – NASA-led strategic astrophysics missions are generally in the large or medium mission class – NASA also initiates strategic partnerships with other space agencies, generally resulting in a NASA contribution to a partner-led mission

• PI-led competed missions – Initiated by a PI-led team in the form of an Astrophysics Explorers proposal to NASA, either for a full mission or a mission of opportunity – Astrophysics Explorers full mission classes are small (SMEX) and medium (MIDEX) size – Mission of opportunity classes included contributions to a partner-led mission, small complete missions for the cost of a MO, and suborbital-class missions

Examples NASA (Full) Mission Contribution Strategic Hubble, Chandra, Webb Herschel, Euclid

Competed Swift, NuSTAR, TESS ASTRO-H 11 Astrophysics Mission Portfolio

• The different classes of missions come with different levels of complexity, scientific capability, and requirements for location in space. These factors will lead to cost differentials, and levels of risk that the Agency is willing to accept.

• Larger, more complex missions will be more expensive, and so the Agency will expect broader scientific return, will accept the need to develop new technologies and new capabilities, and will be less risk tolerant leading to additional testing and redundancy requirements. – These correspond to NASA Class A and Class B missions

• Smaller, less complex missions will be expected to have more focused scientific objectives and to leverage existing technologies and capabilities; the Agency is more risk tolerant leading to acceptance of selected single-string systems and tailoring of mission assurance requirements. – These correspond to NASA Class C and Class D missions

12 Astrophysics Mission Portfolio

• Given the substantial investment the US government makes in these missions, it is prudent and reasonable to maximize the science return on these investments.

• Over the course of a quarter century (starting circa 1991), NASA Astrophysics has established the Senior Review process which calls upon the science community to help assess the scientific productivity and value of missions operating past their original design lifetimes, and provide to NASA, as one of the findings, a rank-ordered list of those missions.

• These findings have significant input into the future planning of the Astrophysics portfolio, in terms of directing the evolution of the portfolio and the annual budget allocation.

13 Extended Missions

• Transformative science occurs during extended missions (examples)

Hubble and Chandra investigations of the properties of dark Fermi Pass 8 overhaul of the event-level analysis of LAT data matter through statistical analysis of 72 cluster collisions. provides greater resolution and sensitivity, illustrated by the (Harvey, D. et al. 2015, Science, 347, 1462) 80-month 10 GeV sky map (adaptively smoothed to bring out significant details on all scales). (Ackermann, M. et al. ApJS 222, 5, 2016)

14 Extended Missions

• Transformative science occurs during extended missions (examples)

All transiting exoplanets with K magnitude brighter Spitzer studied the environment around the Milky Way’s central than 11; Kepler/K2 extended mission has added a black hole by continuously monitoring it for 24 hours; significant number of potentially rocky planets (blue observations revealed flaring activity with correlation time scales symbols) to the set of known transiting planets (pink not accessible to ground-based telescopes at this wavelength. symbols); these are potential JWST targets for (Hora, J. et al. 2014, ApJ 793, 120) atmospheric composition. (S. Howell, K2 internal report)

15 Extended Missions

• Scientific productivity during extended missions equals or exceeds productivity during the prime mission (all data from Senior Review 2014)

16 Extended Missions

• Scientific productivity during extended missions equals or exceeds productivity during the prime mission (all data from Senior Review 2014)

17 18 19 Astrophysics Missions

LRD Prime Phase Provenance Next SR Hubble 1990 5 yrs E-ext Strategic – large (1972 DS) 2016 Chandra 1999 5 yrs E-ext Strategic – large (1982 DS) 2016 XMM-Newton (ESA) 1999 5 yrs E-ext Strategic - partnership 2016 Spitzer 2003 5 yrs E-ext Strategic – large (1991 DS) 2016 Swift 2004 2 yrs E-ext PI-led competed - MIDEX 2016 Suzaku (JAXA) 2005 2 yrs F (closeout) PI-led competed – MO Fermi 2008 5 yrs E-ext Strategic – medium (2000 DS) 2016 Kepler/K2 2009 4 yrs F/E-ext PI-led competed - Discovery 2016 Herschel (ESA) 2009 4 yrs F (closeout) Strategic - partnership Planck (ESA) 2009 4 yrs F (closeout) Strategic - partnership NuSTAR 2012 2 yrs E-ext PI-led competed - SMEX 2016 SOFIA 2014 5 yrs E-prime Strategic – medium (1991 DS) 2018 LISA Pathfinder (ESA) 2015 9 mos E-prime PI-led competed – New Millennium Ad Hoc ASTRO-H (JAXA) 2016 3 yrs C/D PI-led competed - MO NET 2018 NICER 2016 18 mos C/D PI-led competed - MO NET 2018 TESS 2017 2 yrs C/D PI-led competed - MIDEX NET 2018 Webb 2018 5 yrs C/D Strategic – large (2000 DS) NET 2022 SMEX/MO ~2020 A/B PI-led competed – SMEX and MO Euclid (ESA) 2020 C/D Strategic - partnership Athena (ESA) 2028 Pre-A Strategic - partnership WFIRST Mid-2020s 6 yrs A/B Strategic – large (2010 DS) L3 GW Obs (ESA) 2034 Pre-A Strategic - partnership 20 Astrophysics Missions

21 FY15 Astrophysics Budget Fractions

FY15 Budget 100.0% $1,376M Dev - JWST 46.9% 645M Dev - Other 11.6% 159M Ops - Prime 6.0% 82M Ops - Ext 15.8% 217M Research 6.4% 88M Technology 2.9% 40M Infrastructure 4.7% 65M Management 5.7% 79M

GO - Prime 1.6M GO - Ext 59.7M

22 Formulation Implementation Primary Ops XMM-Newton (ESA) CREAM (on ISS) Swift Extended Ops 12/10/1999 12/2016 11/20/2004

Fermi Euclid (ESA) 6/11/2008 2020

Hubble Kepler Spitzer 3/7/2009 ASTRO-H (JAXA) 4/24/1990 JWST 8/25/2003 2016 2018

Chandra 7/23/1999 NICER (on ISS) 8/2016 NuSTAR 6/13/2012 TESS 2017 Senior Review 2016

LISA Pathfinder (ESA) SOFIA 12/3/2015 Full Ops 2014 23 2016 Senior Review (SR) Plans

LRD EOPM Hubble 1990 Delta SR; Hubble Panel Chandra 1999 Delta SR; Chandra Panel XMM (ESA) 1999 Standard SR; Main Panel Spitzer 2003 Standard SR; Main Panel Swift 2004 Standard SR; Main Panel Suzaku (JAXA) 2005 No review; EOM plan approved Fermi 2008 2013 Standard SR; Main Panel Kepler/K2 2009 2013 Standard SR; Main Panel NuSTAR 2012 2014 Standard SR; Main Panel SOFIA 2014 2019 Review 2018 LISA Pathfinder (ESA) 2015 2016 Out of cycle review, if needed ASTRO-H (JAXA) 2016 2019 Review NET 2018 NICER 2016 2018 Review NET 2018 TESS 2017 2019 Review NET 2018

24 2016 Senior Review Timeline

Action Date Done Draft Call for Proposals issued August 20, 2015 ✓ Deadline to send comments on draft to NASA September 10, 2015 ✓ Final Call for Proposals issued September 25, 2015 ✓ Senior Review Proposals due January 22, 2016 Main panel meets in Washington, DC February 22-25, 2016 HST review and site visit in Baltimore, MD March 8-10, 2016 CXO review and site visit in Cambridge, MA March 22-24, 2016 Delivery of panel reports to NASA HQ April 2016 NASA Response/direction to projects. May-June 2016 Reports released on APD website.

For more information: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/2016-senior-review-operating-missions/

25 NASA Astrophysics

What methods (including any metrics) are in place to review mission performance and what criteria are used to assess prospects for extensions?

The reviews NASA carries out for mission extensions (Senior Reviews) take a number of factors into account:

Scientific merit; Promise of future impact and productivity; Progress towards previously agreed-to Prioritized Mission Objectives (PMOs); Impact of past scientific results; Accessibility, usability, and utility of data; Spacecraft and instrument health & safety; Productivity and vitality of the science team; Level and quality of the stewardship of the asset; Effectiveness of communications to the general public.

26 NASA Astrophysics

Please describe (briefly) the senior review process currently used by your division to assess operating missions which are candidates for extension.

The Astrophysics Senior Review assists NASA in maximizing the scientific productivity from its Operating Missions within a constrained budget. NASA uses the findings from the Astrophysics Senior Review to: – Prioritize continued funding of the operating missions and projects; – Define an implementation approach to achieve astrophysics strategic objectives; – Provide programmatic and budgetary direction to missions and projects for the near-term (2 fiscal years after the date of the review); – Issue initial funding guidelines for out-years (subject to the next Senior Review). Held every two years, the Astrophysics Senior Review evaluates proposals for continued funding for its operating missions and projects. It is held as the highest level of peer review within the Astrophysics program. All classes of missions including Strategic missions, PI-led Explorer missions, and Foreign-led missions in which the U.S is a minor partner, are subject to this review process.

Additional details of process in Backup (charts 34-37) 27 NASA Astrophysics

Please explain whether there are differences in how you review missions of different scales (i.e., small, medium, flagship)?

Astrophysics has, beginning with the 2014 Astrophysics Senior Review, differentiated between core facilities (Hubble and Chandra) and those missions that have more narrowly-scoped capabilities. There is a presumption that core facilities operate as long as possible, whereas other missions may reach an end to their science productivity and value.

It has been a long-established policy in Astrophysics that PI-led missions are expected to transition to community-driven observatories in exchange for moving into extended operations. – Swift now supports an observer community well beyond the gamma-ray burst community – Kepler data is no longer reserved for the PI-led science team, and Kepler is used to observe all classes of cosmic sources – NuSTAR is pointed in response to observing proposals rather than being directed by the PI

28 NASA Astrophysics

Are data collected by missions in your division used by other organizations (e.g., NOAA, DoD, others), and if so, does NASA consider the impact of mission extensions/cancellations on these organizations?

This is not applicable to any of the NASA Astrophysics missions.

29 NASA Astrophysics

Are similar types of data that are being collected by other, non- NASA missions (either by other agencies like NOAA, or foreign space programs) considered when making mission extension decisions?

The context of foreign space programs is very important to NASA but having good, cooperative mission planning results in no redundancies.

If there were duplicative data being taken by another agency, then Astrophysics would certainly examine via the Senior Review process the need to continue such a mission on the NASA side.

30 NASA Astrophysics

How does Deep Space Network time (or other limited resources, such as engineering personnel availability) affect mission extension decisions?

For DSN or engineering support, there is typically no impact. By the time we get to mission extensions, the support for that mission is built into the various baseline planning.

31 NASA Astrophysics

What is your perspective on the current senior review processes – for example, what works, what doesn’t, is the cadence of senior reviews close to optimal, what might be improved, etc.?

The 2 years period seems rather frequent, but it is prescribed by public law. We would welcome your input on this aspect of the mission extension process. There are burdens and overheads on the missions due to writing proposals, uncertainty in planning, staff attrition, disruption/distraction from the primary goal of obtaining science, and cost.

In short, the process is excellent, but cadence might not be optimal, especially for core facilities (Hubble, Chandra).

32 NASA Astrophysics

Do you have any thoughts about alternatives to the senior review process?

This has been discussed before every review held: Astrophysics has been doing Senior Reviews for almost a quarter century. We think we have optimized it to an exceptionally high degree.

33 NASA Astrophysics

How do you use the senior review recommendations in making mission extension decisions? What other factors do you use when making a mission extension decision?

The Astrophysics Senior Review is the primary factor influencing mission extension decisions. However, there are other factors, such as the budget, programmatic considerations, agency or national policy, and international partnerships.

34 NASA Astrophysics

How does the mission extension process fit into the overall budget process?

The Astrophysics Senior Review is timed to precede the agency’s annual budget formulation cycle, so that the findings about the missions and their possible extensions are on-hand as input before final budgetary decisions are made.

35 NASA Astrophysics

How does the decadal survey schedule and process influence mission extension decisions?

36 NASA Astrophysics

Are there general principles and innovative ideas that can be applied to reduce costs and increase the science cost- effectiveness of extended missions? How do you assess the potential for increased risk associated with such approaches?

In order to maximize the investment that NASA has made into the design, construction, and operation of a mission, it is a reasonable expectation that continuing the operations of the mission beyond its prime phase is both scientifically sensible and fiscally responsible.

In its extended phase, NASA will accept higher operational risk, lower data collection efficiency, and instrument/mission degradation due to aging. It is assumed that, along with this greater risk, the cost to implement an extended mission will be less than during the prime phase of operations. – Example: During extended mission operations, lights out operations are normal. This results in longer recovery times from anomalies and higher risk of mission loss. Such impacts are accepted in exchange for reduced operations costs.

37 38 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrophysics

BACKUP

39 Astrophysics Division - SMD

40 Proposal Preparation Instructions

1 • Scientific Merit 2 • Promise of future impact and productivity 3 • Progress made toward achieving 2014 PMOs 4 • Impact of past scientific results 5 • Broad accessibility, usability, and utility of the data 6 • Spacecraft and instrument health and safety 7 • Productivity and vitality of the science team 8 • Level and quality of observatory stewardship 9 • Effectiveness of communications and communications plans

41 Budget Request Instructions

In guide • Budget consistent with NASA-defined levels. (required)

• Budget that would allow for continued operations at a level below in-guide budget. • By identifying such a minimum acceptable funding level, the project is indicating that Under-guide any further reduction is untenable. (optional) • The difference in return (science, technical, spacecraft health and safety, etc.) compared to the in-guideline plan should also be clearly identified.

• Submitted if the proposed in-guide budget poses a significant (self-assessed) risk to the continued operations. Over-guide • Submitted in cognizance of the tight NASA budget. The added return from the over-guide versus the in-guideline plan should be clearly (optional) identified. • Senior Review Panel can evaluate none, some, or all of the added return and estimate the budget required for partially funding any proposed increases.

42 Review Criteria

Criterion A: Scientific Merit (40% weighting) Factor A-1: Overall scientific strength and impact of the mission. Factor A-2: Expected scientific output and “return on investment” over the requested funding period. Factor A-3: Incremental and synergistic benefit to the Astrophysics Division Mission Portfolio. Factor A-4: Quality of data collection, archiving, distribution, and usability.

Criterion B: Relevance and Responsiveness (30% weighting) Relevance to the research objectives and focus areas described in the SMD Science Factor B-1: Plan. Relevance to the scientific goals of the Astrophysics Division as defined in the Division’s Strategic Objectives and the 2010 Astrophysics Decadal Survey. Progress made toward achieving PMOs in the 2014 Senior Review proposal (for Factor B-2: missions included in the 2014 SR). Factor B-3: Performance of addressing any findings in the 2014 Senior Review. Criterion C: Technical Capability and Cost Reasonableness (30% weighting) Cost efficiency of the mission’s operating model in terms of meeting the proposed Factor C-1: scientific goals. Health of the spacecraft and instruments, and suitability of the mission’s operating Factor C-2: model and science team to maximizing its scientific return. Factor C-3: Current operating costs.

43 Charge

1. Use the above criteria to individually assess each project over the period (FY17 and FY18) and the extended period (FY19 and FY20). 2. Use the above criteria to rank the projects over the period (FY17 and FY18) and the extended period (FY19 and FY20). 3. Provide findings to assist with an implementation strategy for the Astrophysics Division portfolio of operating missions for FY17 through FY20, including an appropriate mix of: a. Continuation of projects at their “in-guide” level; b. Continuation of projects with either enhancements or reductions to their in-guide budgets, the boundaries of which are defined by the “over-guide” and “under-guide” levels; c. Mission extensions beyond the prime mission phase, subject to the “Mission Extension Paradigm”; and/or, d. Termination of projects. 4. The findings must take into account the following factors: a. The panel’s assessments and relative rankings of the missions under consideration. b. The overall strength and ability of the resulting mission portfolio, including both the missions under consideration, as well as new missions expected to be launched, to fulfill the Astrophysics Division priorities from FY17 through FY20, as represented in the 2014 SMD Science Plan and in the context of the 2010 Astrophysics Decadal Survey. c. The projected science returns of the missions under review with the potential advances to be gained from an alternative strategy of increased funding for other Division priorities. d. The scientific tradeoffs and opportunity costs involved in extending existing projects versus reducing or terminating them and using that funding for future flight opportunities, most especially in light of new Astrophysics missions expected to be launched.