April 24, 2009 10 am - 3 pm
Lunch provided.
UCLA Kinsey Pavillion 1240B adjacent to Knudsen Hall

---

DISCUSSION POINTSDiscussion points:

• what are the leading science questions of the coming decade that warrant
  prioritization?
  
  
• what criteria should be used to make community choices?
  
  
• where is technology development needed, and how should it be weighed
  against the funding of research with existing facilites and capabilities?
  
  
• the future of large telescopes: emphasis on TMT
  * relationship to the national effort
  
  * national funding for instrumentation efforts
  
  
• the balance of resources between space and ground-based research
  
  
• the balance of resources between major facilities and individual
  research efforts. Funding models - budget allocations accompanying
  observing time allocations.
  
  
• adequacy of opportunities for students and young scientists. What programs
  or mechanisms warrant new emphasis?
  
  
• what should be done at the national level for public outreach of our science?
  How can the appeal of astronomy and related technical fields be enhanced in
  order to draw more top-echelon participants?
  
  
• the most compelling and/or indispensable capabilities of the
  coming decade. Top priorities for the capabilities of future
  ground and space-based projects.

---

DISCUSSION POINTS suggested by the Decadal Survey organizers:

• So that we can improve letting the community know how the survey is proceeding and how the community can be involved, do you have any suggestions regarding: 1) the information flow outward from the survey committee via the Astro2010 web site plus chair's bulletins on the one hand, and 2) the written input opportunities plus town hall meetings such as this one, on the other?
  
  
• What do you think are the most important criteria for making choices about activities?
  
  
• Within the coming decade, what balance of resources should be devoted to short term opportunities -- those that can be realized in less than a few years -- versus longer term, larger, and generally more expensive ventures?
  
  
• What is the role of work such as technology development, theory, laboratory astrophysics, data analysis, data dissemination, data archiving, and database mining? Relative to pushing forward on the decade's recommended starts, what balance of resources should be devoted to these efforts for next decade's missions/telescopes, projects, and science?
  
  
• Part of the charge to the survey committee is to recommend how the agencies should rebalance programs in the light of changes in assumptions, scientific progress, or fiscal constraints. If you were writing the survey report, how would you address the inevitable changes in circumstances that can occur during the decade covered by the survey?
  
  
• How can we generate maximal support for the survey process and maintain community solidarity behind the recommended program when it is completed?
  
  
• ideas on how astronomy and astrophysics can argue effectively for more funds when there are many other pressing scientific and other national needs?
  
  
• advice on how the Astro2010 committee can go about its business and improve communications?
  
  
• The survey structure, which includes a first-stage study period on science and on the state of the profession, followed by a second- stage activity prioritization process, is different from previous surveys. Do you have advice for the committee regarding how the process is carried out, e.g. comments on how much separation vs interfacing there should be between the two stages?