1. Decadal Panel
   • Actions on nominations to sub-panels
   • Notes from Charles Lawrence (see below)
2. Status of Mission Study
   • What is our goal from the decadal process? What message should the report relay?
   • More comments on outline
3. Support Statement
4. Virendra's meeting in Washington

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