The news story “Fates of two big radio dishes hang in the balance” (Physics Today, February 2017, page 26) toes the official line of the NSF astronomical sciences division (AST) with regard to the Arecibo Observatory and the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope. It implies that the AST conducted a complete and reasonable evaluation of its commitment to these observatories. I do not agree.
On 27 April the AST published a letter, “MPS-AST Facility Divestment Activity,” that provided “a top-level summary of the current status of NSF actions regarding facility divestment recommendations made in 2012.” The story mentions the recommendations, commonly called the 2012 portfolio review. One recommendation is that “AST should reevaluate its participation in Arecibo . . . later in the decade in light of the science opportunities and budget forecasts at that time.” A follow-up assessment in 2016 considered the budget but not the science, and included serious errors and omissions. Arecibo and Green Bank science is unique and cutting edge, with significant discoveries and developments since the 2012 review.
As one example, the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav), which uses both Arecibo and Green Bank, is precisely in line with the national priority of multimessenger astrophysics—the combined use of photons, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and gravitational waves—outlined by NSF director France Córdova in her May 2016 speech to the National Science Board. NANOGrav is our nation’s second gravitational-wave observatory, sensitive to a different frequency range and far cheaper — the combined total annual operating costs for Arecibo and Green Bank are less than for LIGO, about $24 million versus $30 million, and without the $1.5 billion price tag for LIGO development, construction, and support, as Cordóva reported to Congress on 7 June.
The Arecibo and Green Bank contribution to gravitational-wave astrophysics was touched on in “Pulsar timing arrays are poised to reveal gravitational waves” (Physics Today, July 2017, page 26), which quotes Xavier Siemens of NANOGrav as saying, “We want to buy all the available time at Arecibo and Green Bank. . . . It would save both telescopes.” Córdova discussed building additional detectors “to observe other parts of the frequency spectrum,” but did not mention that such a detector already exists in the US and is in jeopardy of losing necessary NSF-sponsored facilities.
I wondered whether NSF is interested in providing that funding. My emails to the NSF physics division on that subject received a reply from the program director for gravitational physics suggesting that I contact the AST.
NANOGrav has not yet made a detection, but since sensitivity improves with the time spanned by the measurements, that day is rapidly approaching. When the LIGO detection was announced, several other nations quickly funded gravitational-wave detectors. Why is NSF fighting to close one of the two US gravitational-wave observatories?
NSF loudly promotes beneficial broader impacts to society as underlying its funding decisions. Observatories on foreign soil cannot compete with one in the US for broader impacts on American citizens. Both Arecibo and Green Bank are in areas where their broader impacts on local communities are especially important, and both provide significant broader international impacts.
The February Physics Today article states that the environmental impact statements (EIS’s) that NSF must submit “look at social and economic factors in addition to financial and environmental ones.” However, an EIS does not replace consideration by NSF of intellectual merit within and across fields of science and broader impacts locally, nationally, and internationally.
AST appears to be basing its course of action not on merits of the science or benefits to society but on other considerations, such as the personal preferences of managers and the desire to deflect attention from past mistakes. Thus the process changes from evaluation of scientific and societal merits to a political fight.
The science and broader impacts are clear. AST has ignored them and has damaged its own interests and those of other fields of science served by the observatories.
On 20 September Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, and Arecibo incurred damage. But Maria is not the first hurricane the observatory has endured, and the storm’s results show that with competent management Arecibo, now 54 years old, can continue producing world-class science.
On 15 November NSF issued a decision on the way forward for the Arecibo Observatory. AST will not close Arecibo but will ramp down its current support from $8 million to $2 million per year over the next five years. NASA supports the Arecibo planetary radar program and has contributed $4 million of the total $12 million for the past several years. However, NSF and Arecibo managers rejected an offer from Breakthrough Listen, an international project searching for extraterrestrial life, to contribute to Arecibo and also missed an opportunity for NANOGrav to contribute.
In addition, NASA has not considered increasing its participation and will pay only incremental operating costs, excluding maintenance, security, and other base costs. These decisions add risk for the future of Arecibo.
Such past fumbling is not promising. However, a new managing organization for Arecibo may be in place as soon as April 2018, and we can hope that the new management will make better decisions than current management.
With some creativity and desire, NSF managers can contribute to a solution that meets the need of AST and preserves the unique scientific capabilities and services that Arecibo and Green Bank provide. Otherwise, the decision to ramp down current NSF support will likely ramp up the political fight.