Panel created in 2001 as part of restructuring of PPARC Advisory Structure One of five advisory panels: Astronomy Advisory Panel (AAP) Solar System Advisory Panel (SSAP) Particle Astrophysics Advisory Panel (PAAP) Particle Physics Advisory Panel (PPAP) Technology & Industry Advisory Panel (TIAP) Astronomy Advisory Panel:

Current Membership Mike Edmunds (Chair) - Cardiff Peter Coles - Nottingham Cathie Clarke - IoA Melvin Hoare - Leeds Seb Oliver - Sussex Mark Cropper - MSSL Simon Morris - Durham Trevor Ponman - Birmingham Keith Horne - St Andrews

Terms of Reference maintain a prioritised long-term strategy for Astronomy, excluding solar systems science, within PPARC; advise on the facilities and missions required to deliver that strategy; review the success of PPARC in meeting the strategy; report to the Science Committee, and provide input to the annual update of the Road Map and to the Science Committees strategy discussions; advise the Science Committee on proposals and priorities.

AAP Strategy Framework for: Priority setting & finance by Science Committee Working with the community – making PPARCs priorities clear and the views of the community clear to PPARC Panels judging proposals and awarding grants

Developing a strategy AIM: To provide a summary of the science priorities and requirements in the area of astronomy and astrophysics, as viewed by the AAP, over the coming ten years

Philosophy Presupposes that funding will only be given for excellent research. Promote research in areas of strategic importance Promote research which will have significant international impact Promote research which will clearly lead to development of new areas of strategic importance Dont exclude research in areas not directly within the key science priority areas where its real significance can be demonstrated and in particular, where breakthroughs would have a wide implication for astrophysics in general

The strategy must: Enable production of world-leading, high impact science Ensure access to a range of relevant, world- competitive facilities Recognise areas of UK strength Meet the broader requirements of the PPARC strategy, interacting with other areas of the programme where appropriate Maximise the return from UKs ongoing investment in existing facilities and projects

The strategy must: Allow appropriate prioritisation between new and diminishing science areas and associated facilities Provide a balanced programme including ground- and space-based instrumentation, technology development and theoretical work Provide a route to developing and encouraging long-term, blue-sky projects (e.g. far-IR missions beyond Herschel/Planck; sub-mm surveys; innovative space missions)

Science Committee priorities What are the basic properties of the fundamental particles and forces? Is there a Theory of Everything, and if so what form does it take? What is the origin of the Universe? How did it evolve? Can we understand the origin of the observed structure? What constitutes the dark mass and dark energy of the Universe? How does the Universe work? What is the present and future influence of the Sun on our solar system? How do stars and planetary systems form and evolve? Has life existed elsewhere in the Universe, and does it exist elsewhere now?

AAP priority science areas: Cosmology The formation and development of galaxies Star formation and the formation and evolution of planetary systems Extreme environment astrophysics Underpinning; Theory, modelling (incl. HPC), GRID (data)

Implement strategy by: Linking the science requirements to the provision of the necessary facilities Ensuring that the overall resources into particular areas are appropriate, in particular ensuring that the necessary research personnel are available to achieve the science goals Maximising world impact by either the direct visibility of the UK role, for example by PI-status, lead authorship, or by playing a smaller, but critical role (by virtue of specialist expertise) in large projects where the scientific return will be outstanding

Implement strategy by: Being supportive of and centrally involved in high UK priority science, ESA missions. Only where a high priority scientific area cannot be addressed by an ESA mission should the UK seek other partnerships Exploiting the UKs membership of ESO. We should be seen as a key influence in the development of ESOs strategic vision and seek to become a significant partner in new developments, where these match UK science goals and utilise UK technological and/or instrumentation expertise. (eg. VLT instruments, VLTI, ELT)

Implement strategy by: Viewing support for the grants line as critical for the programme overall. Engaging in maximum exploitation of current UK world-class facilities, including the JCMT, UKIRT, ING and AAT on the ground, and observatories such as XMM-Newton in space. Capability should be upgraded where appropriate, but decreasing involvement should be sought where a facility is no longer globally competitive.

Cosmology Key science questions: What is the origin of the Universe? Can we understand the origin of the observed structure? What constitutes the dark mass and dark energy of the Universe?

Cosmology 8-m telescope time Planck e-MERLIN Herschel JWST ALMA GAIA SKA LISA Darwin OWL/ELT XEUS

The Formation and development of galaxies 8-m telescope time Planck Wide-field surveys e-MERLIN Herschel JWST ALMA GAIA SKA LISA OWL/ELT XEUS

Star formation and the formation and development of planetary systems 8-m telescope time Wide-field surveys e-MERLIN Herschel JWST ALMA GAIA SKA Darwin OWL/ELT

Extreme environment astrophysics 8-m telescope time Wide-field surveys e-MERLIN JWST ALMA GAIA SKA LISA Darwin OWL/ELT XEUS

Questions 1 Regarding the AAP strategy: Are the core science headings correct (slide 10) ? If you were able to replace one of these headings, which one would you remove? What would you replace it with? What are your views on the balance between the level of grant support against that used for facilities/missions etc? Do you have suggestions on how this level should be set? Within the grants line (or otherwise?) how do we ensure sufficient science exploitation effort for future large projects (ALMA, JWST…) so that we are not out- performed by our partners? How far should grant awards reflect the strategy? Should some areas receive ring-fenced funding for projects/grants? Which ones and why?

Questions 2 Facilities and missions: Taking into account their different timescales, which of the facilities and missions shown in the previous slides, would you designate as of particularly high or particularly low priority? Why? What gaps are there in the programme of future facilities and missions seen as high priority by the Panel? These might include: What should follow Herschel in the far IR? How should the UK move forward until the next generation of X-ray space observatories (XEUS/Constellation-X)?

Questions 2 continued What are your views on the priorities within the ESO programme? (i.e. ELT, VLTI, ALMA, VLT 2nd generation, La Silla) In the next generation of ESO/Gemini instruments, what should the UK be pushing for? Do you have particular, and important, observing requirements that are not presently met, and will not be met within the current strategy? What is the optimum way for the community to interface with ALMA (and other observatories)? Is it through regional support centres or university-based support groups?

Questions 3 Software and computing What are your views on astronomical software provision? Will the advent of the Virtual observatory and e- science developments alter your scientific requirements? How should we influence any changes? How should support for high performance computing infrastructure be provided? Is the current model/level correct?

Questions 4 Applying and developing the strategy What do you think is the best way for PPARC to apply the strategy? What is the best way for the community to participate in the development of the strategy?