Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix B Recommendations from Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025
Pages 49-59

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 49...
... Recommendation 4.6. The GS and the GS community should be in the vanguard of NSF initiatives to promote engagement of women and under-served populations in all aspects of geospace science from school to research proposal writing to leadership in GS activities.
From page 50...
... AER/MAG/STR grants research also should continue to serve as a technology incubator, funding modest-scale projects in experimental instrument development with a focus on new scientific capabilities. As these development efforts mature, their funding source should transition from the core programs to programs such as the recommended Innovation and Vitality (Section 7.4.1)
From page 51...
... Recommendation 6.8. The GS should evaluate the utility of proposal deadlines in its targeted grants programs and determine whether proposal deadlines may be stimulating an artificial inflation in proposal submissions for the limited funding available in the targeted programs, resulting in lower proposal success rates as suggested in an experiment undertaken by the Division of Earth Sciences.
From page 52...
... The PRC recommends that NASA/NSF explore best practices for collaboration on Grand Challenge Projects, perhaps along the lines of the aforementioned NASA/NSF Collaborative Modeling under Space Weather. The broadening of these collaborative efforts embraces the holistic scope of the Decadal Survey.
From page 53...
... The GS should reduce its M&O support for the Arecibo ISR to $1.1M/year; i.e., to a proportional pro rata level approximately commensurate with the fractional NSF GS proposal pressure and usage for frontier research. Recommendation 7.6.
From page 54...
... Recommendation 7.19. If the CTC aspires to develop innovative instrument capabilities and concepts for a new GS facility, e.g., an Observatory for Atmosphere Space Interaction Studies (OASIS)
From page 55...
... The initial opportunity for awards, to be evaluated by an ad hoc review panel, should provide funding of sufficient duration that the DASI projects can be evaluated in conjunction with the other Class 1 and Class 2 facilities by the proposed Senior Review Panel (Section 7.5) at its first meeting.
From page 56...
... GS PMs should continue to encourage GS investigators to pursue co-funding from the PREEVENTS and similar future programs of the Geoscience Directorate. Whenever possible co-funding these types of targeted programs from the GS budget should be derived from GS Strategic Grants or Facilities programs rather than the GS Core Grants program.
From page 57...
... Unnumbered Recommendation, Section 8.1.4. If and when NSF central funding for INSPIRE projects phasesout, the GS should continue to use its own internal and well-established processes to fund high-quality projects that cross the disciplinary boundaries of its core grants programs and seek appropriate partners external to GS for projects that cross section, division or directorate boundaries.
From page 58...
... Recommendation 9.5. With the assumption that future research in core and targeted grants programs will entail an increasing number of collaborative projects devoted to integrative and cross-disciplinary geospace science, the GS should migrate future funding for such projects into strategic grants programs for Space Weather research and Grand Challenge Projects.
From page 59...
... If use of the Arecibo Observatory is no longer available to GS researchers, e.g., due to divestment or insufficient funding for its continuing operation, and the GS budget remains at or above the flat funding level assumed for the Portfolio Review, then the recommended annual funding of $1.1M for Arecibo should be redirected to the Innovations and Vitality Program described in Section 7.4. Depending on community consensus and the recommendations from the Facilities Senior Review recommended above, a significant portion of this augmented I&V annual budget might be applied to investment in a new Midscale Project Program.


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.