Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

5 Decadal Survey Program Formulation and Opportunities for Improvement
Pages 33-41

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 33...
... Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey; 2013 Solar and Space Physics Decadal Survey Stephen Mackwell, Director, Lunar and Planetary Institute; Member, Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science; 2011 Planetary Science Decadal Survey Marcia J Rieke, Regents' Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona; Member, Space Studies Board; Member, Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics; 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Panel moderator Alan Dressler began his introductory remarks by noting that program prioritization is one of the key activities conducted by a decadal survey.
From page 34...
... Contrary to the views of presenters in the previous session, Dressler does not think it is possible to strictly prioritize diverse scientific activities without reference to the means by which those priorities might be implemented. He illustrated his point by referencing his experience as chair of one of the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey's program prioritization panels (PPPs)
From page 35...
... Stephen Mackwell began his answer by noting that planetary science is destination-oriented, and so a panel structure oriented around destinations was most appropriate. The 2011 planetary science decadal survey's five panels collectively encompassed all of the planetary bodies that exist in the solar system.
From page 36...
... It avoided an issue Rieke had seen while working on two prior decadal surveys: picking specific science goals because they were what a preselected mission was good at doing. Rieke noted that each of the PPPs had to wrestle to ensure that the SFPs' scientific desires matched up with what the missions could do and make certain that the mission priorities folded in and reflected the science priorities.
From page 37...
... Todd Hoeksema responded that the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey committee used a similar process as the Earth scientists. The first goal was to identify key science issues.
From page 38...
... missions were not prioritized. Marcia Rieke began her response to the moderator's questions by noting that the science community was the source of the science and mission goals discussed in the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey.
From page 39...
... AUDIENCE INTERACTION The moderator, Alan Dressler, then commented that because the discussions ran longer than anticipated, the panel did not have time to address the final questions he had formulated. Of these unposed questions, the one most appropriate for discussion with the audience is: Did the processes employed by the various recent decadal surveys fairly represent the community's interests and desires?
From page 40...
... The blending of key scientific questions into a suite of potential missions represents the essence of a decadal survey. Stephen Mackwell agreed that it would be possible to draft a series of prioritized science questions spanning the solar system; but the resulting document would be particularly shallow if it did not also address the means by which those questions would be addressed.
From page 41...
... An astronomy decadal survey that addressed only science questions and leading implementation issues for NASA would give short shrift to the interests of NSF. Mackwell reinforced Dressler's point concerning mission specificity by noting his experience on the first midterm planetary science decadal survey review.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.