Thread 2: process. The report is work of 145 committee and panel members, plus 21 amazing @theNASEM staff (who I love unconditionally). Working with these people was a privilege.
The input of the community was critical, from the incredibly detailed Flagship mission studies to 867 white papers. Every white paper, every page of every study, was read by one ore more committee and panel members.
Six science panels reviewed the field and identified key questions in their areas. Informed by that, five program panels focused on different techniques (space OIR, etc). Program panels evaluated proposed missions and facilities against these science questions
An outside contractor produced assessments of the technological readiness and cost (TRACE) to avoid massive surprises.
Two panels looked at the foundational research landscape and the state of the profession and its role in society
The panels reports are attached as appendices and they’re excellent and important detailed documents
From that, the Steering Committee (SC) distilled three science themes, each with a priority area. The SC combined the panel inputs and prioritized to assemble a balanced and feasible program.
Under the complex conditions of the past year and a half, a lot of thoughtful discussion happened on zoom, a lot of writing and thinking and second-guessing and sandcharting and reviewing.
The report isn’t what any single person would have written; it’s a consenus and compromise. It doesn’t and can’t do everything but it does and must present a bold vision for astrophysics.
#astro2020 will move us towards answering fundamental questions. It will move to making astronomy better for the people in it and better for the society we’re part of.
And the next steps are up to us - astronomers, agencies, Congress, and everybody.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
