|
AST Portfolio Review
The Astro2010 Decadal Survey Report made its recommendations to NSF in the context of a projected budget that would double in ten years. The report also explicitly noted (p. 240) that "If the realized budget is truly flat in FY2010 dollars … there is no possibility of implementing any of the recommended program this decade – without achieving significant savings through enacting the recommendations
of the first 2006 Senior Review process and/or implementing a second more drastic senior review before mid-decade."
Based on the FY2011 budget appropriation and the FY2012 budget request, the optimistic budget assumed in the Astro2010 recommendations is unlikely to materialize. Therefore, NSF’s Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) is commencing a Portfolio Review process. Unlike the 2006 Senior Review, which considered the future only of AST-supported facilities, this review will encompass the entire portfolio of AST-supported facilities, programs, and other activities. The goal of the review is to recommend to AST how support for existing facilities, programs, and activities should be prioritized and interleaved with new initiatives recommended by Astro2010, within the limitations of realistic future budgets.
Latest News on Portolio Review Status
2012 January 31 – COMMUNITY INPUT PERIOD ENDS
2012 January 23 – AAS Town Hall Slides Posted
2012 January 12-14 – Portfolio Review Committee Second Face-to-Face Meeting
2012 January 5 – Introduction to the Portfolio Review Informational Materials Released
2011 October 26 – Community Input Invited
2011 October 21-23 – Portfolio Review Committee First Face-to-Face Meeting
2011 October 19 - Committee Membership Announced
2011 July 17 - Nominations for Committee Membership and Chair Closed
2011 June 13 - Call for Community Input - Nominations for the Portfolio Review Committee Membership and Committee Chair
2011 May 24 - AAS Town Hall
Portfolio Review Committee
| Daniel Eisenstein (Chair) |
Harvard University |
| Joe Miller (Vice-Chair) |
Lick Observatory |
| Marcel Agueros |
Columbia University |
| Gary Bernstein |
University of Pennsylvania |
| Geoff Blake |
California Institute of Technology |
| John Feldmeier |
Youngstown State University |
| Debra Fischer |
Yale University |
| Chris Impey |
University of Arizona |
| Cornelia Lang |
University of Iowa |
| Amy Lovell |
Agnes Scott College |
| Melissa McGrath |
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center |
| Michael Norman |
University of California San Diego |
| Angela Olinto |
KICP, University of Chicago |
| Michael Skrutskie |
University of Virginia |
| Karel Schrijver |
Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center |
| Juri Toomre |
University of Colorado |
| Rene Walterbos |
New Mexico State University |
Review Process and Committee Charge
Committee activities began in late September 2011, and a report will be completed by the end of June 2012. The time frame is planned so the Review recommendations may be considered in the budget process for FY2014.
The Committee will be asked to construct its recommendations in a 2-stage process:
-
Determine the critical capabilities needed to make progress on the science program articulated in Chapter 2 of Astro2010; and
-
Determine what combination of new facilities and programs plus existing -- but evolved -- facilities and programs will best deliver those capabilities within strict budgetary constraints.
Recommendations will be made in the context of the full domestic and international astronomical landscape, taking into account the effects on current and potential partnerships and on the status of the profession.
The Review will NOT reopen debate on the content or the relative prioritization of the Astro2010 recommendations.
The full text of the Charge to the Portfolio Review Committee contains the details on the review process, context, and boundary conditions.
Community Input
The NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) invites input to its Portfolio Review process from members of the scientific community. The input window will be open from October 26, 2011, through January 31, 2012. Submitted comments or documents are limited to 5 pages in length, but may contain a URL link to a longer document (see below).
HOW YOUR INPUT WILL BE USED
Community input will be made available, in original form, only to the Portfolio Review Committee and to NSF staff. AST Division staff will sort and categorize submitted comments for better organization and access, and may produce synthesized summary documents, combining the views of many individual submitters, as needed by the Committee.
MAKE YOUR INPUT COUNT
Useful community input will directly address the Charge to the Committee and its context, which are discussed more fully above.
The Astro2010 Decadal Survey recommendations laid out in “New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics” (NWNH) were made under the assumption of an AST budget that, with inflation, would approximately double to nearly $500M by 2020. However, current projections predict a 2020 AST budget of between $250M and $350M. Thus, future budgets will be insufficient to fully maintain the portfolio of existing and upcoming facilities, projects, and programs as well as to implement the Astro2010 recommendations for new facilities and program enhancements.
The Committee is being asked to determine (1) the capabilities needed to optimize progress on the Science Program articulated by Astro2010 (Chapter 2 of NWNH), and (2) the combination of new, upcoming, and existing-but-evolved facilities, projects, and programs that will best deliver these capabilities given the budgetary constraints. It may help to think of this process as interleaving the Astro2010 recommendations with the existing portfolio.
Examples of helpful input would include: priority orderings of key capabilities needed for particular science goals; alternative ways to achieve desired capabilities; suggested evolution or combination of public, private, and university resources to achieve high-priority capabilities; or discussions of the effects of changes to the portfolio on the status of the profession.
Examples of unhelpful input would include: advocating for a new project not endorsed by Astro2010; recommending re-ordering of Astro2010 priorities from the main Astro2010 report; arguing for increased support for some set of activities without a viable suggestion for offsetting costs; suggesting that AST ask, hope, or lobby for more funding; or any comments sent anonymously.
HOW TO SEND YOUR INPUT
If your comments can be expressed succinctly using text alone, then compose your input in the body of a plain-text Email message (the preferred method). You may send a single Word or searchable PDF document as an attachment; but if you do, provide a short executive summary in the body of the Email. With any method of submitting input, please be brief and to the point. No input longer than 5 pages will be accepted. You may include a URL link to a longer document, but keep in mind that the committee is not required to read it; a crisp executive summary may be more effective. Try to make it as easy as possible for the Committee to read and understand your input. Summarize the focus of your input on the subject line of the email (e.g., “midscale projects,” “AAG program,” etc.), and be more descriptive than just “comments for portfolio review.”
Please do not send Astro2010 white papers or revisions of them, reprints of journal articles, copies of publicly available documents (cite a URL), proposals for funding, or other material not related to the Charge to the Committee. The original Astro2010 white papers are public documents and will be available to the Committee, so they need not be resubmitted. The Committee will have access to the Astro2010 main report and panel reports and to the Planetary Sciences Decadal Survey report.
WHERE TO SEND INPUT
Send your comments to astportfolio@nsf.gov. Please do not contact committee members individually.
CHECKLIST
- Comments in plain text Email or a single Word or PDF attachment?
- If sending an attachment, executive summary in the Email body?
- Comments directly connected to the Charge to the Committee?
- As concise as possible?
- Helpful few-word description in the subject line?
- No more than 5 pages in length?
We thank you in advance for your comments and the effort you are making to participate in this important process.
Informational Materials
2012 January AAS Town Hall Presentation
Report of the 2006 Senior Review
2011 AAS Town Hall Presentation
Introduction to the Portfolio Review
|
