Comments on: The next decade http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:57:53 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Your Thoughts on the Next 10 Years of Astronomy & Astrophysics | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-65094 Your Thoughts on the Next 10 Years of Astronomy & Astrophysics | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:43:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-65094 [...] Daniel nicely outlined below, the US astronomical community is currently going through its decadal exercise in naval [...] [...] Daniel nicely outlined below, the US astronomical community is currently going through its decadal exercise in naval [...]

]]> By: Jeff http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64888 Jeff Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:36:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64888 Julianne, you're right in that the mission debates will be rough, but the science panels are critical too if they are able to actually explicitly prioritize. That's often anathema among a group of scientists who generally believe all science is good. But to recommend, for example, exoplanet discovery as a higher priority than dark energy, or the life cycle of stars explicitly over the secrets of pulsars, would then directly affect: 1. the mission prioritization somewhat, and 2. highly influence the likelihood of grant awards and competed mission calls. I'm not saying, of course, that either of those recommendations would be good, or even that any recommendation is good. But a generic statement that equates to "more astromony = good" doesn't help the community, NASA, the NSF very much. So, good luck as you tackle some hard problems! Julianne, you’re right in that the mission debates will be rough, but the science panels are critical too if they are able to actually explicitly prioritize. That’s often anathema among a group of scientists who generally believe all science is good. But to recommend, for example, exoplanet discovery as a higher priority than dark energy, or the life cycle of stars explicitly over the secrets of pulsars, would then directly affect: 1. the mission prioritization somewhat, and 2. highly influence the likelihood of grant awards and competed mission calls.

I’m not saying, of course, that either of those recommendations would be good, or even that any recommendation is good. But a generic statement that equates to “more astromony = good” doesn’t help the community, NASA, the NSF very much. So, good luck as you tackle some hard problems!

]]> By: E http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64878 E Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:28:46 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64878 Julianne, Can you explain why there's a need for confidentiality? All the white papers will become public (hopefully soon). The committee reports will become public. I suspect there will be some rather bland statement explaining the processes by which the committee reached its conclusions. Supposedly, they're making an effort to seek input. So why keep the intermediate workings secret? It seems to me that if they really wanted us to provide relevant input, then they'd need to let people know what they're thinking as they go, so that people can point out the possible unintended implications of various recommendations. I would think that keeping their intermediate thoughts secret before unveiling a final result is a recipe for the masses feeling left out and tempting them to second guess. Julianne, Can you explain why there’s a need for confidentiality?

All the white papers will become public (hopefully soon). The committee reports will become public. I suspect there will be some rather bland statement explaining the processes by which the committee reached its conclusions. Supposedly, they’re making an effort to seek input. So why keep the intermediate workings secret?

It seems to me that if they really wanted us to provide relevant input, then they’d need to let people know what they’re thinking as they go, so that people can point out the possible unintended implications of various recommendations. I would think that keeping their intermediate thoughts secret before unveiling a final result is a recipe for the masses feeling left out and tempting them to second guess.

]]> By: Julianne http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64872 Julianne Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:50:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64872 Jeff & Daniel -- I actually just got back from the first panel meeting, and they gave us the Serious Talk about confidentiality. However, we are actively encouraged to seek input. I was planning on starting an open thread on monday. I can say that the panel so far is informed and conscientious. However, I'm on one of the panels that deals with scientific priorities, not missions. It's the latter where things will get rough. Jeff & Daniel — I actually just got back from the first panel meeting, and they gave us the Serious Talk about confidentiality. However, we are actively encouraged to seek input. I was planning on starting an open thread on monday.

I can say that the panel so far is informed and conscientious. However, I’m on one of the panels that deals with scientific priorities, not missions. It’s the latter where things will get rough.

]]> By: Mike Peel http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64859 Mike Peel Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:38:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64859 Daniel, thanks. In that case, please remember that "the entire Astronomy and Astrophysics community" isn't based in the US. There are a few of us still out here in the sticks (Europe, Australia, Russia, etc...) (that's meant to be dry humour; please don't take offense) Daniel, thanks. In that case, please remember that “the entire Astronomy and Astrophysics community” isn’t based in the US. There are a few of us still out here in the sticks (Europe, Australia, Russia, etc…)

(that’s meant to be dry humour; please don’t take offense)

]]> By: daniel http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64857 daniel Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:19:40 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64857 Jeff, I was indeed wondering why Julianne hadn't posted about this! But she's on the Galactic Neighborhood panel, and therefore is probably advised against actively soliciting (beyond the general call)? Hopefully she'll chime in about the whole process sooner or later... Jeff, I was indeed wondering why Julianne hadn’t posted about this! But she’s on the Galactic Neighborhood panel, and therefore is probably advised against actively soliciting (beyond the general call)? Hopefully she’ll chime in about the whole process sooner or later…

]]> By: Jeff http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64796 Jeff Sun, 01 Mar 2009 05:36:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64796 I'm quite involved in this, mostly on the mission concept side. But in fact, I believe one of our favorite bloggers here is on one of the Decadal Survey panels, right? I'm sure there's confidentiality issues, but maybe Julianne could find some way to let us know how things get hashed out in those smoke filled rooms... I’m quite involved in this, mostly on the mission concept side. But in fact, I believe one of our favorite bloggers here is on one of the Decadal Survey panels, right?

I’m sure there’s confidentiality issues, but maybe Julianne could find some way to let us know how things get hashed out in those smoke filled rooms…

]]> By: daniel http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64794 daniel Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:56:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64794 Mike, yes, it's just an exercise for the US community. But since many of the missions (e.g., LISA) are international collaborations, there is generally broad participation. Mike, yes, it’s just an exercise for the US community. But since many of the missions (e.g., LISA) are international collaborations, there is generally broad participation.

]]> By: Ben http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64775 Ben Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:55:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64775 Duplicate titles generally are for white papers with the same titles that were submitted to different sub-panels of the decadal survey. In at least some cases, I believe the content is different to be tuned to the specific sub-panel. Duplicate titles generally are for white papers with the same titles that were submitted to different sub-panels of the decadal survey. In at least some cases, I believe the content is different to be tuned to the specific sub-panel.

]]> By: Mike Peel http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/comment-page-1/#comment-64772 Mike Peel Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:34:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/28/the-next-decade/#comment-64772 OK, so I'm pretty new to the community, but I've never heard of this. This might be because I'm based in the UK: is this US-only? OK, so I’m pretty new to the community, but I’ve never heard of this. This might be because I’m based in the UK: is this US-only?

]]>