NSF Portfolio Review

The NSF Astronomy division is commencing a Portfolio Review process...

"Based on the FY2011 budget appropriation and the FY2012 budget request, the optimistic budget assumed in the Astro2010 recommendations is unlikely to materialize. Therefore, NSF's Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) is commencing a Portfolio Review process. Unlike the 2006 Senior Review, which considered the future only of AST-supported facilities, this review will encompass the entire portfolio of AST-supported facilities, programs, and other activities. The goal of the review is to recommend to AST how support for existing facilities, programs, and activities should be prioritized and interleaved with new initiatives recommended by Astro2010, within the limitations of realistic future budgets..."

First rule of committees: the committee decisions are a function of the committee membership.

Portfolio Review Committee

  • Daniel Eisenstein (Chair)Harvard University
  • Joe Miller (Vice-Chair)Lick Observatory
  • Marcel AguerosColumbia University
  • Gary BernsteinUniversity of Pennsylvania
  • Geoff BlakeCalifornia Institute of Technology
  • John FeldmeierYoungstown State University
  • Debra FischerYale University
  • Chris ImpeyUniversity of Arizona
  • Cornelia LangUniversity of Iowa
  • Amy LovellAgnes Scott College
  • Melissa McGrathNASA Marshall Space Flight Center
  • Michael NormanUniversity of California San Diego
  • Angela OlintoKICP, University of Chicago
  • Michael SkrutskieUniversity of Virginia
  • Karel SchrijverLockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center
  • Juri ToomreUniversity of Colorado
  • Rene WalterbosNew Mexico State University

Going to be some very tough decisions to be made.

"Committee activities began in late September 2011, and a report will be completed by the end of June 2012. The time frame is planned so the Review recommendations may be considered in the budget process for FY2014.

The Committee will be asked to construct its recommendations in a 2-stage process:

Determine the critical capabilities needed to make progress on the science program articulated in Chapter 2 of Astro2010; and

Determine what combination of new facilities and programs plus existing -- but evolved -- facilities and programs will best deliver those capabilities within strict budgetary constraints.

Recommendations will be made in the context of the full domestic and international astronomical landscape, taking into account the effects on current and potential partnerships and on the status of the profession.
The Review will NOT reopen debate on the content or the relative prioritization of the Astro2010 recommendations."

Categories

More like this

As you know, Bob, the NSF Portfolio Review is under way. The NSF is urgently requesting community input for the process. AST Portfolio Review Community Input Invited This is important. It is highly desirable that a significant number of people provide concise and explicit input to the committee…
Anyone want to buy some telescopes? Heavily used. Free to a good home. The NSF has issued a preliminary response to the NSF Astronomy Portfolio Review. Game on. NSF MPS/AST Response to Portfolio Review Report (pdf) This is a 4 page response from NSF Astronomy Division Director Ulvestad to the…
Heads up, peeps.NSF Portfolio Review is out Mayall, WIYN, 2.1m KPNO, GBT and VLBA are out in recommended scenarios. Shit. Portfolio Review - full text 170 pp (pdf) To summarise: Kitt Peak telescopes cut; Green Bank Radio Telescope and Very Large Baseline Array cut; McM-P Solar Telescope cut before…
Every other year NASA conducts a Senior Review of its astrophysics missions that have completed their nominal mission and are requesting an extension of their mission. The 2012 review panel just reported. The panel had an interesting task - to rank in priority the operating missions: Chandra Fermi…