1 / 7

AST Portfolio Review

AST Portfolio Review. Tom Statler , NSF/AST AAAC Meeting 13 Oct 2011. AST Portfolio Review.

zuriel
Download Presentation

AST Portfolio Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AST Portfolio Review Tom Statler, NSF/AST AAAC Meeting 13 Oct 2011

  2. AST Portfolio Review • NWNH advised: “If …budget is truly flat…there is no possibility of implementing …the recommended program…without…enacting the recommendations of the first 2006 senior review and/or …a second more drastic…review before mid-decade.” (p. 240) • AST portfolio review will not be a repeat of Senior Review, which was confined to facilities. • Examine balance across entire portfolio of activities AST supports. • Enable progress on central science questions (Ch. 2 of NWNH), balancing recommendations for new facilities & instrumentation with capabilities of existing facilities & programs. AAAC

  3. Review Philosophy • Goal: Define the astronomical landscape for the coming decade. • 2 “mapping” steps: • Let key science questions from NWNH determine set of critical capabilities needed in 2015, 2020, 2025. • Determine how to achieve these capabilities through combination of • New facilities & instrumentation (following NWNH) • Evolution of existing facilities & programs AAAC

  4. Review Philosophy • Note that review is explicitly forward-looking • Key question re: existing facilities is • Can the facility be evolved so as to provide a critical future capability? • - not- • Has the facility earned the right to survive by virtue of past performance? • Avoid overburdening facilities with demand for statistics or overburdening committee with need to invent metrics of productivity. AAAC

  5. Other Boundary Conditions • Multiple budget scenarios through 2025 to be provided by AST. Consider costs of delivering/evolving existing capabilities and costs of new facilities. • No revisiting/rehashing Astro2010 process or recommendations. • Include context of NASA, DOE, & joint programs, private observatories, & international activities • Consider consequences for domestic, international partnerships and on state of the profession. AAAC

  6. Charge to Committee • Recommend balance of investment in new & existing facilities, grant programs, and workforce required in 2015, 2020, 2025 to enable progress on science questions identified by Astro2010. • Prioritize with sufficient granularity to permit adjustments in response to variations in Federal funding. • Recommendations should be viable and lead to vigorous and sustainable future for US astronomy. • Report early enough in 2012 to inform FY2014 budget request. AAAC

  7. Current Status • Public announcements at May 2011 AAS and via mid-June Email to AAS and APS/APD distribution lists. • Nominations for committee membership accepted until July 15 • 17-member PR Committee now complete, diverse with regard to science expertise, geography, career stage, and other important demographic dimensions • Opportunity for Community input will be announced (by AAS/APS Email) week of Oct 17; Committee membership to be made public via PR webpage. • Committee has met by telecon; first face-to-face Oct 21-23 AAAC

More Related