 Links |
Public /
DecadalPlanningPublic.DecadalPlanning HistoryHide minor edits - Show changes to output August 02, 2013, at 04:36 AM
by - added proposed response
Changed lines 79-97 from:
# The proposed broad astronomical categories are good at the top level but dont provide a very useful structure for working groups. As already noted something like high energy astrophysics is very thinly distributed across all these groups and not well represented in any. I noticed that the mid-term review did use the more practical technique based structure (optical, radio etc) for its working groups. My suggestion is that we use a matrix structure with the current categories on one axis and the techniques on an orthogal axis. We then add HEA along with radio, optical, multiwavelength etc. Curiously Theoretical Astrophysics is added as if it were a branch of astronomy rather then another entry on the technique axis! In this scheme you can also form working groups on the technique axis and they can feed into the current top level groups. [Ron Ekers] to:
# The proposed broad astronomical categories are good at the top level but dont provide a very useful structure for working groups. As already noted something like high energy astrophysics is very thinly distributed across all these groups and not well represented in any. I noticed that the mid-term review did use the more practical technique based structure (optical, radio etc) for its working groups. My suggestion is that we use a matrix structure with the current categories on one axis and the techniques on an orthogal axis. We then add HEA along with radio, optical, multiwavelength etc. Curiously Theoretical Astrophysics is added as if it were a branch of astronomy rather then another entry on the technique axis! In this scheme you can also form working groups on the technique axis and they can feed into the current top level groups. [Ron Ekers] ---- Having thought about this a little over the last few days I do not think we would be well-served by having a separate "High-energy Astrophysics" working group. Although we might be collected under that banner, even then this group is very diverse and does not necessarily have common goals or requirements. Instead I would strongly encourage all of you to volunteer to help with the working groups that overlap with your areas of interest. It is important to make your voice heard throughout this process. I propose that following the meeting we prepare a joint response to the NCA, something along the following lines: -> Members of the high-energy astrophysics and gravitational-wave community [''add others where appropriate''] met on 2nd August via telecon to discuss the proposed Decadal Plan timeline and working group structure. -> We feel that the proposed working groups are too broad to adequately represent the diversity of effort in the Australian community. We would strongly encourage more focussed groups more closely aligned with the different techniques across the community. -> We also feel that there are additional high-level goals that should be considered. For example, it is predicted that the first detection of gravitational waves will be achieved within the next decade. If successful, this achievement could lead to a profound shift in the international astronomical research field, both in terms of the new information available, as well as the likely strategic reassessments that might result. The Australian community should as a high priority plan how best to respond to this opportunity. -> Signed: Duncan Galloway, ... Feel free to add to or edit this text, discuss, sign or not sign, etc. August 01, 2013, at 05:36 AM
by - contribution
Changed line 79 from:
# The proposed broad astronomical categories are good at the top level but dont provide a very useful structure for working groups. As already noted something like high energy astrophysics is very thinly distributed across all these groups and not well represented in any. I noticed that the mid-term review did use the more practical technique based structure (optical, radio etc) for its working groups. My suggestion is that we use a matrix structure with the current categories on one axis and the techniques on an orthogal axis. We then add HEA along with radio, optical, multiwavelength. Curiously Theoretical Astrophysics is added as if it were a branch of astronomy rather then another entry on the technique axis! In this scheme you can also form working groups on the technique axis and they can feed into the current top level groups. [Ron Ekers] to:
# The proposed broad astronomical categories are good at the top level but dont provide a very useful structure for working groups. As already noted something like high energy astrophysics is very thinly distributed across all these groups and not well represented in any. I noticed that the mid-term review did use the more practical technique based structure (optical, radio etc) for its working groups. My suggestion is that we use a matrix structure with the current categories on one axis and the techniques on an orthogal axis. We then add HEA along with radio, optical, multiwavelength etc. Curiously Theoretical Astrophysics is added as if it were a branch of astronomy rather then another entry on the technique axis! In this scheme you can also form working groups on the technique axis and they can feed into the current top level groups. [Ron Ekers] August 01, 2013, at 05:33 AM
by - contribution
Added lines 78-79:
# The proposed broad astronomical categories are good at the top level but dont provide a very useful structure for working groups. As already noted something like high energy astrophysics is very thinly distributed across all these groups and not well represented in any. I noticed that the mid-term review did use the more practical technique based structure (optical, radio etc) for its working groups. My suggestion is that we use a matrix structure with the current categories on one axis and the techniques on an orthogal axis. We then add HEA along with radio, optical, multiwavelength. Curiously Theoretical Astrophysics is added as if it were a branch of astronomy rather then another entry on the technique axis! In this scheme you can also form working groups on the technique axis and they can feed into the current top level groups. [Ron Ekers] Changed line 73 from:
Other suggestions that might result in better long-term outcomes are, naturally, welcome. Additional comments, criticisms etc. are welcome - to:
Other suggestions that might result in better long-term outcomes are, naturally, welcome. Additional comments, criticisms etc. are welcome - click on the "Edit" link at top right, and add your comments or suggestions below the line Added lines 63-64:
Additional material for the plan can be found as [[http://www.atnf.csiro.au/nca/DP_Volume2.html|volume II (on-line)]] Changed lines 10-11 from:
1.4 Theoretical astrophysics to:
1.4 Theoretical astrophysics Changed lines 14-15 from:
2.3 eScience to:
2.3 eScience Changed lines 54-55 from:
1.3 Industry to:
1.3 Industry Changed lines 58-59 from:
2.3 Stars and Planets to:
2.3 Stars and Planets Changed lines 62-63 from:
3.3 University-scale Facilities to:
3.3 University-scale Facilities Changed lines 66-76 from:
Options that have been intimated so far include 1. Fit the various research activities into the proposed structure, possibly with strategic international representation (Luciano Rezzolla was suggested) 2. Suggest one or more additional working groups to better represent the "long tail" of the Australian community Other suggestions that might result in Comments, suggestions, criticisms etc. all to:
The section below is intended for any interested parties to add suggestions, comments, topics for discussion. The two obvious options include # Fit the various research activities into the proposed structure, possibly with strategic international representation (Luciano Rezzolla was suggested) # Suggest one or more additional working groups ("Multi-messenger astronomy"?) to better represent the "long tail" of the Australian community Other suggestions that might result in better long-term outcomes are, naturally, welcome. Additional comments, criticisms etc. are welcome - feel free to add below the line July 30, 2013, at 12:52 AM
by - added links, info to the previous DE=P
Added lines 47-63:
---- For reference, the working groups for the 2006-15 decadal plan (which can be found as a [[http://www.atnf.csiro.au/nca/DecadalPlan_print.pdf|print]] or [[http://www.atnf.csiro.au/nca/DecadalPlan_web.pdf|web version]]) are: 1.1 Demographics \\ 1.2 Education and Training \\ 1.3 Industry \\ 2.1 Cosmology and the High Redshift Universe \\ 2.2 The Milky Way Galaxy \\ 2.3 Stars and Planets \\ 3.1 International-scale Facilities \\ 3.2 National-scale Facilities \\ 3.3 University-scale Facilities \\ ---- July 30, 2013, at 12:26 AM
by - created page - first draft
Added lines 1-62:
This page is intended for discussion and suggestions regarding the high-energy and gravitational-wave astrophysics community's response to the proposed working group structures for the upcoming decadal plan covering 2016-25. In case you came in late: the planning for the next astrophysics decadal plan -- to cover the period 2016-25 -- is now under way. The proposed structure of the working groups was presented at the ASA meeting a few weeks ago at Monash, and has also been circulated via the ASA exploder. The proposed working groups, listed in the [[Attach:DecadalPlan_timeline.pdf|timeline document]] circulated in July, are: 1.1 Galaxies and cosmology \\ 1.2 Stars and the Galaxy \\ 1.3 Star formation and planets \\ 1.4 Theoretical astrophysics \\ 2.1 International scale facilities (>$5M) \\ 2.2 National and university scale facilities (<$5M) \\ 2.3 eScience \\ 3.1 Demographics (chair: Sarah Maddison) \\ 3.2 Education and training \\ 3.3 Industry \\ 3.4 Research funding Chairs are to be decided (except where specified). Several people expressed concern that many topics of current research in Australia, including (but not limited to) high-energy astrophysics and gravitational wave astronomy, do not fit naturally into the proposed working group structure. I think it would be valuable to discuss as a group how we would like our research represented in the decadal plan. I have scheduled a telecon to discuss how best to include the research areas of interest to all of us collectively (which I've termed "outsider" astrophysics, for want of a more accurate short description) in the decadal plan discussions. The telecon will take place via Skype on -> '''3pm AET Friday 2nd July''' If you can't make it for the selected timeslot, or if you have some discussion you'd like to add, please [[#contributions|post your comments here]] or email issues you would like discussed to me or one of the other attendees. Below is the excerpt of the mailout to the ASA exploder of 15th July: -> The National Committee for Astronomy (NCA) carries out a formal strategic planning process on a 10-year time scale. This provides the opportunity for Australian astronomy to carry out a stock take of its capabilities, assess its impact both nationally and internationally, provide a vision for the future, and to set priorities and develop strategies on how that vision might be implemented. -> The document New Horizons, A Decadal Plan for Australian Astronomy 2006-15 has been influential as a tool for presenting our vision to key stakeholders outside the research sector. This includes Australian Astronomy's key stakeholder, the Commonwealth Government, as well as industrial/research partners both nationally and internationally. As the currency of the last Decadal Plan for Australian Astronomy concludes in 2015, it is now time to consider the process for producing the next Decadal Plan, covering the period 2016-25. -> The NCA has formulated a proposed structure and timeline for the preparation of the 20016-25 Decadal Plan, which is set out in the attached document. The proposed structure and timeline was described at the ASA ASM on July 11th, and the presentation from this talk is also attached to this email. -> The NCA would now like to call for -> 1) feedback on the timelines and structure of the planning process, and -> 2) nominations for interest in participation or leadership of the working groups. -> The NCA encourages participation in preparation of the Decadal Plan from a broad cross-section of the Australian astronomy community. Please provide feedback (to swyithe@unimelb.edu.au) by the 12th of September. Options that have been intimated so far include 1. Fit the various research activities into the proposed structure, possibly with strategic international representation (Luciano Rezzolla was suggested) 2. Suggest one or more additional working groups to better represent the "long tail" of the Australian community Other suggestions that might result in better long-term outcomes are, naturally, welcome. Comments, suggestions, criticisms etc. all welcome - feel free to add below the line ---- [[#contributions]] |