Campuses:
At the just-completed astrophysics subcommittee meeting we got a little insight from Roger Blandford and John Huchra [Harvard; also an approved member of the survey panel] into the coming decadl process. Key features
Blandford:
Will prioritize science to inform mission choices
Will work as fast as possible without compromising final report They are shooting for final report Spring 2010
There will be a central committee with “a different suite” of panels
They will keep spokespersons for specific projects which are in play off of the central committee, but such advocates could be on the panels
“More people” will be directly involved than in the McKee Taylor report
THey will distinguish science from missions and inclulde science interfaces to: physics, including fundamental physics [I think] planetary/exo-planets [ground-based] solar physics. In short, they will be inclusive of science, but perhaps exclusive of missions/programs
JDEM will be reviewed and prioritized. Missions under development, e.g. SOFIA, JWST, will not be placed on the table by NASA
They expect to produce prioritized lists as part of the output: work to a range of budget scenarios be descriptive of possible contingencies/tripwires
Not keen on international representation on committees/panels
In response to my question, Roger said that groups wishing to make presentations or submit white papers should target summer 2009 [seems a bit late to me]
In a separate discussion, Morse made it clear that he will push them to stay on the advertised schedule [impacts the 2011 budget] and that he expects the ASMCS teams [not HQ] to bring their project[s] to the attention of the decadal committee be a little more descriptive than past surveys of possible contingencies.