| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Name and Affiliation Mandatory | Submit your findings here. | Discussion | Write comments in this column and to the right! | Please include your Name and Affiliation! | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Kathy Mandt, APL & Carol Paty, U. Oregon/Wed discussion | Participating Scientist for Juno Extended Mission | If the extended mission is approved, the mission and the community would benefit greatly from another participating scientist call. Of particular value is adding expertise on the satellites and rings. Because the extended mission would begin in 2022, such a call should be issued quickly in order to allow new participating scientists to join the team right away. Jupiter's satellites and rings represent an extension into new areas of science for Juno and provide an opportunity to expand OPAG community involvement in Juno. These represent the only OPAG related data sets that can be obtained over the next few years while waiting for Clipper, JUICE and if selected for Discovery, IVO and Trident. This is an important opportunity for a diverse set of early career scientists. | Adding additional expertise to the Juno team, and in particular a team for the camera, should be an extremely important component if Juno goes into an extended mission. Juno is a NF mission and there are not separate teams for individual instruments, everyone is part of the same team. An option might be to advocate participating scientists based on topics rather than instrument data sets. | Seconded. I think OPAG should generally support participating scientist calls including what is described here -Catherine Elder, JPL | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Amanda Hendrix/Tues discussion | potential descoping of Clipper WAC? Discussion included concerns about the impact of descoping WAC on a future Europa Lander mission. | Bob Pappalardo response: Please keep in mind that this issue is on the table in response to NASA direction: WAC is at risk only if EIS were to break its cost cap, which was imposed to limit cost. Cost control is a critical responsibility of Europa Clipper and NASA to the science community. No one wants WAC (or MASPEX) to be descoped, but we also must collectively contain costs. | Perhaps a finding that expresses support for the HQ processes that resulted in WAC and MASPEX not being descoped so far, and that OPAG reinforces the importance of these 2 instruments and strongly supports them being retained if possible under the cost cap. (Cynthia Phillips, JPL) | I suggest urging NASA to carefully consider the impact of not flying the WAC on future exploration of Europa. Even if the current Europa Lander concept is not close to a new start, we should agree that Europa exploration does have a future beyond Europa Clipper and getting to the surface will be key. Let's think big picture and long term. -Alfred | I second Alfred's comment (Morgan Cable, JPL/Caltech) I thind the comment (Kathy Mandt, APL) | With regards to the question as to whether or not this is worth repeating as a finding, it probably is given costs may increase due to COVID delays and it's not clear (to me) how that will be handled. (Catherine Elder, JPL) | |||||||||||||||||||
5 | Michael Aye question on Wednesday | Juno camera science team | As JUNO's outreach camera is now being used for science goals of the mission extension, will this change be reflected in a funded science team for the camera? What about more partcipitating scientists, this time for the camera? | Adding additional expertise to the Juno team, and in particular a team for the camera, should be an extremely important component if Juno goes into an extended mission. (Cynthia Phillips, JPL) | SGE: Jeff states that this could be combined with a finding on participating scientists. | Michael Aye, LASP: The story here is bigger than participating scientists though, because the important point is, that the PI was NOT ALLOWED (this statement claiming NOT ALLOWED is not true per scott) to even apply for a camera science team, despite mission extension. goals being addressed by it. per scott: there are no instrument teams, the PI did not try to add one and an instrument team would not fit into the Juno team. The way to do this is to have participating scientists added the way it was suggested earlier, based on research interest or topic, not as an instrument team member as there are no instrument teams on Juno for any instrument (- Scott) | Thanks for clarifying Michael - I think we can include this in the larger Juno PS finding - Carol Paty, UO | I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not ask to add a JunoCam science team. We have what we need to run JunoCam. What I asked for was additional scientists for topics. Instument teams exist on Flagships, not Juno. Everyone on Juno can work with any data set they are interested in, and they can attend any instrument meeting. (scott) | ||||||||||||||||||
6 | Julie Rathbun and Moses Milazzo questions on Tuesday | Concern that the decadal survey panel structure may not provide the needed coverage of "state of the profession, including issues of diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility, the creation of safe workspaces, and recommended policies and practices to improve the state of the profession. Where possible, provide specific, actionable and practical recommendations to the agencies and community to address these areas." | If OPAG sends a letter to the decadal chairs, this concern should be mentioned in the letter | Your findings do go to NASA and you could communicate to tNASA that you are concerned that NAS won't meet the satatement of task. | <-- Agreed. While it's out of NASA's hands, expressing findings is still important to make it clear that the concern with the described structure is that it does not currently provide for a concentration of expertise such that the State of the Profession question can be answered comprehensively. --Moses Milazzo, Other Orb | Even if a finding to NASA does not impact the Decadal Survey structure, it can still be useful for future actions if the concerns turn out to be predictive; a community-wide discussion of this will have an impact. The extensions to due dates came about because the community talked about it. --Moses, Other Orb | OPAG could both send a letter to DS leadership and submit the letter as a white paper since those deadlines aren't up yet (J. Keane, JPL/Caltech). (And I'd encourage OPAG leadership to take charge of writing that white paper. EDIWG is already doing a lot, and this would support their efforts without increasing their work load.) | |||||||||||||||||||
7 | Tom Spilker question on Tuesday | Question about implications of independent cost evaluations in the Decadal Survey and a lack of iteration on mission cost drivers having unintended consequenses. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Amanda Hendrix Thurs presentation | It was pointed out that there has not been a study of the planetary telescope in spite of this being called for by national academies studies | This is deja vue all over again. I'm sure OPAG has recommended such studies since the beginning. Let's hope the DS finally acts. Fran | |||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Kunio Sayanagi | Something like "OPAG recommends completing studies of all mission concepts recommended by CAPS "Getting Prepared ..." report. In particular, Saturn System Mission and Space Telescope Dedicated to Solar System Science remain to be studied." | OPAG will draft a letter to the Decadal Co-chairs | If OPAG can draft a letter to the Decadal co-chiars on this, why not on the above diversity issue? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | scott bolton, swri | for the Decadal, a NF study of an ice giant mission would inform on what science is possible. A mix of Trident and Juno would be a powerful NF mission and the cost might be low enough that two NF missions covering Uranus and Neptune would be less than a single flagship (and alot faster). This study is of particular importance if NF remains restricted to specific missions as it is now. | Seconded! There are many great NF ice giants concepts (including system missions) in the community. Getting these higher visibility within the decadal could help improve the odds of selecting an ice giants mission! | There are at least two white papers written on this topic (see Cohen et al, and Leonard et al).- Erin Leonard, JPL | After spending several sentences advocating for Ocean Worlds, (specifically and generally) in NF, the decadal white paper mentions " Advances in technology may allow for competed life detection missions or Ice Giants missions within the New Frontiers program." Current white paper submissions indicate the technology for ice giants in NF is ready now. By not advocating as explicitly for ice giants in NF as for Ocean Worlds, are we hurting our ability to capture those missions? Are these really as far out technologically as life detection? (Sam Howell, JPL) (I may have deleted a short comment in this spot with no author! Sorry!) -- Thanks for all the clarifications on my confusing comment given the difficult forum!! | More about the asymetry of advocating for Ocean Worlds mroe heavily than Ice Giants in NF. There are OPAG-related white papers that indicate some ice giants missions are technologically in hand -- perhaps not so far out | Instrument maturation is taking place RIGHT NOW in programs like ICEE-2 and the other instrument programs. This does not preclude missions to ocean worlds being ready to go NOW. (Cynthia Phillips, JPL) | So... Basically, we agree with the CAPS report to keep Enceladus in the next NF, would encourage the addition of ice giants, and would really like it open (if that's the OPAG consensus). (J. Keane, JPL/Caltech) | ROW outlined a pathway for studying ocean worlds. The first step is identifying if there is an ocean. This has not been done at the ice giant moons, so we're not at life detection yet | is it a problem that OPAG steering committe members are pushing for a ice giant flagship...they are not representing the community because of a conflict of interest. | <- Please address this at a future meeting. | <-- Maybe steering committe members should be picked through community voting. That would help with these concerns and people could also consider affiliation in their voting decision if they're concerned about center representation as discussed in other rows | Also note that ROW is not the last word on exploring ocean worlds. Many differing opinions on a parth forward persist in this community. Maybe OPAG should have a standing committee on ocean worlds exploration that can report back to the full SC/meeting their proposed findings and interests. This would be less drastic a step than an OWAG, as some have called for. | we need to split up OPAG as the ocean worlds and giant planets both need and deserve individual representation, especialy given Discovery and NF missions can be focused. This is another example of the steering committee wanting to keep control rather than serve the community. The two topics are not related and are not served well by a single group advocating for both. This arrangement hurts NASA, the science community and the tax payer. The chairs of OPAG should think about the community rather than power and inflluence. | ||||||||||||
11 | Shannon MacKenzie, APL | (Still not sure what is appropriate for a finding, so apologies if this is does not belong) Continued support for CDAP as a stand alone RNA program | perhaps related, NFDAP seems overfunded strong relative to other programs per selection rate - Sam Howell (JPL) . Sorry for bad wording! | How about something like "OPAG recommends a balance between different DAP programs in terms of selection rate." (Morgan Cable, JPL/Caltech) | I noticed the asymmetry with NFDAP as well. -- Michael Aye, LASP | I don't know if you want to argue something is "overfunded," rather that most programs are dramatically "underfunded." We should be striving to get selection rates >20%. (J. Keane, JPL/Caltech) | NFDAP will likely see more proposals as more data become eligible. | Agree with J. Keane. We want to encourage sustainable funding levels where they occur. Also, the DAPS are funded out of mission lines, and I imagine that as ORex data and more NH data become available that proposal number will definitely go up. We don't want to hamstring ourselves. (Angela Stickle, APL) | ||||||||||||||||||
12 | Kunio Sayanagi | Provide inputs to Steven Rinehart about R&A funding | There are a lot of really good questions and comments in the discussion. We should try to draw out the most important points brought up in this. | We need to have something about the untenable, ~10% selection rate in SSW and other programs. This is a crisis and should be addressed somehow as quickly as possible. I encourage us not to conflate this with other R&A issues (like rolling reviews, etc.). (J. Keane, JPL/Caltech) | I agree. Fran B | PICASSO was also mentioned as 10% selection. | This is a really important finding - we need strong words about the long and short-term implications to the community of 10% funding rates (Cynthia Phillips, JPL) | |||||||||||||||||||
13 | Steven Rappolee Consultant. San Francisco City College | Finding; End of mission mission extensions that involve Planetary protection manuver back into Heliocentric orbit and or aditional #SBAG targets are to be incouraged and planetary impact not incouraged. IE collect planetary interior data at begining of planetary orbit insertion. | Follow ESA Ice Giant study report IE dont saddel some future senior review with only one option.This platform makes it diffacult for those of us with disibilitys,Thanks (Steven Rappolee) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Lynnae Quick, NASA GSFC | Encourage the community fo fill out full demographic information on NSPIRES so that NASA has large enough numbers to accurately report demographics along multiple axes of diversity beyond just gender and early career status. Encourage NASA to report on multiple diversity axes in the future | NSF collects demographic information annually from those funded by their grants (including new grad students that might join, etc.). Is this an approach SMD could adopt? Asking during each year a grant is funded might increase fidelity in data/trends. - Sam Howell (JPL) | Lynnae: Sam I like your thinking! It seems that all of that information is provided in NSPIRES, it's just not reported on for some reason | I support this strongly (Morgan Cable) | I agree with Lynnae; the questions exist in NSPIRES, please encourage the community to answer those questions. | Seconded! (Catherine Elder, JPL) | Third! (Melissa Trainer, GSFC) | Could NASA have a question on if demographic data could be shared and a person could give their release? (If this is some legal issue for sharing the info) -Kate Craft, APL | --Moses: Maybe the finding here could state that there is a need for NASA to acquire and analyze these data. The data in NSPIRES are collected (voluntarily) under the Personal Profile section. | In response to Curt's comment about HQ being limited in how they can analyze and release demographic data, why can NASA release gender demographic data and not other axes of diversity? And if gender is not from the NSPIRES demographic responses (which also asks about ethnicity, race, and disability status), how do they know the gender of the PI? Hopefully they are not inferring based on name - that can easily lead to errors and ignores non-binary people. (Catherine Elder, JPL) | |||||||||||||||
15 | Fran Bagenal, CU | I encourage OPAG to limit the number of people on the comittee from the Centers - even though it is hard for non-Center people to get fundingto attend - see other spreadsheet for full Q. Probably does not belong here. | NASA funds travel for committee members, but we donate our time -Alfred | Those at centers also deserve representation and agency. There are practicing, soft money scientists and proposers at centers akin to University peers. Taking individuals position and professional scope into view during selection may be more important than whether they are at centers. | Yes, lots of good scientists at Centers. We need fair representation - not over-representation. Fran. To James -the stats are available from the 2011 Demographics survey - available via my LASP website | What fraction of scientists (and engineers, et al., that OPAG serves) are at Centers vs. academia vs other institutions. I agree that we don't want over-representation along any single axis, but we should make sure we're certain that Center people are over-represented. (J. Keane, JPL/Caltech). Follow-up: from the 2020 DPS survey (Q | If this is a finding, I suggest an exception for early career scientists at centers. It is not necessarily easy to become involved in projects just because you're at a center (Catherine Elder, JPL) | Where is the committee membership or selection process addressed? Is this in a charter for the organization or is it owned by NASA? I am questioning whether this is appropriate as a finding or if the concern should be addressed in another way. It should also be written carefully so as not to sound as though it penalizes or excludes scientists from centers. (Melissa Trainer, GSFC) | Chris German, WHOI: Speaking of over/under representation (column F) How can OPAG respond to the fact that the new DS includes an increased emphasis on Astrobiology? This is not unique to OPAG but please can the StCttee think of this when making their selections from among those that nominate/self-nominate? | Tim Livengood, UMD (and GSFC): Soft-money scientists at NASA Centers are not viewed as being members of the Center by the Center Administration (at least, "not at some Centers"). So it's a double-whammy -- don't get to participate in the AG, not viewed as real employees by the Center. Using m,yself as an example case: is the problem solved by just calling myself UMD, or will my well-known physical presence at GSFC trump that? | So I think that it is much more important and relevant to frame this as an issue about over-representation; I can agree with that. And I think that issues of perceived bias should be considered. That said, this does not appear to currently be a problem for OPAG, though it may have been for MEPAG in the past. I trust the steering committee to select new members with an eye to balance. And I further agree with comments that individuals from centers should be treated as individuals, not center representatives, especially as those people would be volunteering their time. (Shawn Brooks, JPL/Caltech) | FYI, follow up with statistics: from the 2020 DPS survey (Q13, https://dps.aas.org/sites/dps.aas.org/files/reports/frequencies_PRELIMINARY.pdf): 42% of respondents are at universities. 31% are at research institutes, FFRDC (e.g., JPL), non-profits. NASA labs are 8%.(James Keane, JPL/Caltech) | I echo the comment by Chris German, that StCom membership enhances diversity to better embrace astrobiological sciences that are part of outer planets R & A programs which will be increasingly important in the coming decade (Alison Murray, DRI) | |||||||||||||
16 | scott bolton, swri | If OPAG only recommends opening NF to all targets and fails to get the OPAG related NF missions studied, then if NF does not open up the NF selections will not include the missions OPAG wants. NASA is funding more NF studies for the decadal, how are these decided? | OPAG explicitly recommended in their paper Ocean Worlds in NF if it can't be opened up. Why not ice giants? | Kunio Sayanagi (Hampton U.): I think we should discuss whether the OPAG community still wants to open up NF -- I think the sentiment of the community may have evolved. Kathy: I agree that a discussion would be useful | Bob Pappalardo, JPL: Are we sure that OPAG is able to recommend anything directly to the Decadal co-chairs at this point, unless specifically asked? It is a NASA-sponsored committee. The input was due through the white papers. [ <-- And: Hear, hear to Kunio!] | Erin Leonard, JPL: I wrote a note to the OPAG comittee on the white paper draft to say that it was not my impression that the community had agreed on opening up NF. I definitely think it needs to be discussed further. | it is really hard to have a discussion on a topic as important as NF opening up via a chat when only the steering committee can speak. not sure what to do about this, but I think it is important to have a real discussion, not this limited. if OPAG decides to reverse on opening up NF, then they should be advocating for ice giant missions to uranus, neptune or their satellites be added to the list. -scott bolton, swri | Seconded =-Abi | Heidi Hammel: there are significant programmatic and strategic issues involved in "opening up the New Frontiers line to all missions" - not saying it cannot be done, but there will possibly be negative repercussions to the community. Happy to discuss further. | Sean Hsu (LASP, CU Boulder): I support the idea to discuss this further. One information may be useful to know is how many OPAG-related mission concepts are in New Frontiers class and what are the possible synegies with other disciplines (e.g., heliophysics, exoplanet/astrophysics) in the next decade. | ||||||||||||||||
17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Kate Craft, APL | State we're happy to see the start of the Observer Program for Early Careers to attend Project meetings. We'd like to hear how it goes, get some kind of feedback reported back | If it goes well we encourage it to be continued into the future! (Cynthia Phillips, JPL) | This is good, BUT should open up to more than 1 science team meeting to have a meaningful interaction, and have funding support. (James Keane, JPL/Caltech) | <--Agreed James! -Kate Craft | Based on the discussion on Tuesday, I think this (the request for funding and more visits) is missing the point of the program. It is not a backdoor participating scientist route, it is a chance to observe to gain insight into how mission team meetings work. (Or am I getting it wrong?) Michael Poston, SwRI | The comments about feedback in Kate's original suggestion strikes me as very important and not to be ignored. I'm not sure how well the success of this program can be judged or how to improve it without such feedback (Shawn Brooks, JPL/Caltech). | |||||||||||||||||||
19 | Sam Howell, JPL | Not a finding, but if the next OPAG is virtual, it would be really helpful to find a way to share a mic or live chat. | AGREED! - Abi | Yep, this is frustrating on both ends (Morgan Cable, JPL/Caltech) | That said... I suspect more people got to give comments in this Google forum. Talking on a phone can make things clearer, but I think this enabled capture of more comments. I don't hate that. (J Keane, JPL/Caltech) | Agreed! e.g. Zoom allows for breakout rooms, etc. Does Ring Central also allow for this? -sge (JPL/Caltech) | I think that Slack would be a nice forum for commenting (Shawn Brooks, JPL/Caltech). | Agree about using Slack (Krista Soderlund, UT Austin) | Also supportive of slack (Sam Howell, JPL) | I agree that slack would be better (if institution restrictions permit it). It was way too easy to write over each others comments in this google doc. The delay of Ustream audio was also very frustrating. By the time I heard the discussion and could comment, the discussion had moved on to another topic. That being said, virtual participation in OPAG has always been difficult, so I think this is actually an improvement for those of us who usually can't fund the travel. (Catherine Elder, JPL) | ||||||||||||||||
20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Sam Howell, JPl | RE: Britney and Tom -- I'm certainly supportive of a finding continuing to support in situ technologies for ocean worlds, surface and beyond as you suggested. Just pulling that out of the above converation on NF. | Also supportive of this finding - support being funding opportunities :) (Kate Craft, APL) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Thanks OPAG folks!! :) -Kate | +1! Sam | +2! Shawn | |||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||