1 / 9

AST Portfolio Review

AST Portfolio Review. AAAC Telecon Meeting May 6, 2011 Tom Statler , AST. Why Do It and What Is It?.

fairly
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 AAAC Telecon Meeting May 6, 2011 Tom Statler, AST

  2. Why Do It and What Is It? • 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) • Not 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 May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

  3. Review Philosophy • Goal: Define the astronomical landscape for the coming decade. • 2 “mapping” steps: • Determine critical capabilities needed in 2015, 2020, 2025 to address key science questions from NWNH SFPs. • Determine how to achieve these capabilities through combination of • New facilities & instrumentation • Evolution of existing facilities & programs AAAC May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

  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 May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

  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. • Consider consequences for domestic, international partnerships and on state of the profession. AAAC May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

  6. Charge to Committee • Recommend balance of investments in new & existing grants programs and facilities 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. • Portfolio should support & develop requisite workforce to exploit recommended research and education investments. • Report by 31 March 2012 in order to inform FY2014 budget. AAAC May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

  7. Inputs • NWNH • Budget scenarios for 2015, 2020, 2025 • Documents used by Astro2010 WG on Status of the Profession • Budget breakdowns (last 10 yrs) • Facilities’ Long Range Plans & Program Plans + other TBD • Statistics from Individual Investigator Programs (last 5 yrs) • Budget growth opportunities (e.g. CIF21, EARS, etc.) AAAC May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

  8. Community Engagement • Assemble diverse committee with regard to wavelength, observation/theory/computation/instrumentation, facility users, institution type/size, career stage, gender, geography. • Invite nominations (including self-nominations) from community, submitted by email; also from MPSAC, AAAC, BPA. • Allow unsolicited community input via email. • Report progress through AAS Newsletter & similar mailings, updates at AAS meetings (5/11 & 1/12). • Progress briefings to MPSAC, AAAC, BPA, OSTP, OMB. AAAC May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

  9. Timeline • End May: nominations open • Mid July: committee formed • Early August: Meeting #1 • October: Meeting #2 • Oct 13-14: update for AAAC • Nov 3-4: update for MPSAC • December: Meeting #3 • Jan 8-12: update for AAS • February: Meeting #4 • Late March: Meeting #5, draft report complete • April: brief MPSAC, OSTP, OMB • April-May: Public comment period • June: Finalize report AAAC May 2011 - AST Portfolio Review

More Related