Lessons Learned in
Decadal Planning in
Space Science
images

Summary of a Workshop

Lewis Groswald and David H. Smith, Rapporteurs

Space Studies Board

Board on Physics and Astronomy

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

                   OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Lewis Groswald and David H. Smith, Rapporteurs Space Studies Board Board on Physics and Astronomy Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This report is based on work supported by Contract NNH11CD57B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This report has been prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The views contained in the report are those of individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Research Council. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-29067-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-29067-8 Cover: Designed by Harrison Dreves. Image of the Orion Nebula courtesy of NASA, ESA, M. Robberto, and the Hubble Space Telescope Orion Treasury Project Team. Image of Saturn and Titan courtesy of NASA, JPL-Caltech, and the Space Science Institute. Image of the Sun courtesy of the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory team. Image of the Earth courtesy of NASA, Reto Stöckli, Robert Simmon, MODIS team, and the USGS EROS Data Center. Background image of galaxies courtesy of NASA, ESA, and R. Massey. Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
OTHER RECENT REPORTS OF THE SPACE STUDIES BOARD AND THE BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY Adapting to a Changing World—Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education (Board on Physics and Astronomy [BPA], 2013) Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion Targets (BPA and the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems [BEES], 2013) An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy (BPA and BEES, 2013) Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid (BPA with the Space Studies Board [SSB], 2012) Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Spacecraft Missions to Icy Solar System Bodies (SSB, 2012) Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey (SSB, 2012) The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate: A Workshop Report (SSB, 2012) NASA’s Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus (Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, 2012) Nuclear Physics: Exploring the Heart of Matter (BPA, 2012) Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey (BPA and SSB, 2012) Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model for Cancer Risk to Astronauts Due to Space Radiation (SSB, 2012) Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions (SSB, 2011) An Assessment of the Science Proposed for the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) (BPA, 2011) Panel ReportsNew Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (BPA and SSB, 2011) Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2011) Sharing the Adventure with the PublicThe Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and Exploration: Summary of a Workshop (SSB, 2011) Views of the NAS and NAE on Agenda Items at Issue at the World Radiocommunication Conference 2012 [prepublication] (BPA, 2011) Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (SSB, 2011) Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research (Laboratory Assessments Board with SSB and ASEB, 2010) Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions (SSB, 2010) Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Final Report (SSB with ASEB, 2010) An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions (SSB, 2010) Forging the Future of Space Science: The Next 50 Years (SSB, 2010) Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2010) New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (BPA and SSB, 2010) Research at the Intersection of the Physical and Life Sciences (BPA and with the Board on Life Sciences and the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, 2010) Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce (SSB, 2010) Selling the Nation's Helium Reserve (BPA, 2010) Spectrum Management for Science in the 21st Century (BPA, 2010) Limited copies of SSB reports are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3477/ssb@nas.edu www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html iv

OCR for page R1
PLANNING COMMITTEE ON LESSONS LEARNED IN DECADAL PLANNING IN SPACE: A WORKSHOP CHARLES F. KENNEL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Co-Chair ALAN M. DRESSLER, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science, Co-Chair STEVEN J. BATTEL, Battel Engineering STACEY W. BOLAND, Jet Propulsion Laboratory WILLIAM B. GAIL, Global Weather Corporation J. TODD HOEKSEMA, Stanford University ANTHONY C. JANETOS, Joint Global Change Research Institute ROBERT P. LIN, 1 University of California, Berkeley STEPHEN J. MACKWELL, Lunar and Planetary Institute RALPH L. McNUTT, JR., Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory PAUL L. SCHECHTER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Staff DAVID H. SMITH, Senior Program Officer, Study Director LEWIS B. GROSWALD, Associate Program Officer CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Editor CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator HARRISON DREVES, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Space Studies Board 1 Dr. Lin passed away on November 17, 2012. v

OCR for page R1
SPACE STUDIES BOARD CHARLES F. KENNEL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Chair JOHN KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired), Vice Chair MARK R. ABBOTT, Oregon State University JAMES ANDERSON, Harvard University JAMES BAGIAN, University of Michigan JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation THOMAS R. GAVIN, California Institute of Technology NEIL GEHRELS, NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center SARAH GIBSON, National Center for Atmospheric Research HEIDI B. HAMMEL, AURA RODERICK HEELIS, University of Texas, Dallas JOSEPH S. HEZIR, EOP Group, Inc. WESLEY T. HUNTRESS, Carnegie Institution of Washington ANTHONY C. JANETOS, University of Maryland JOAN JOHNSON-FREESE, U.S. Naval War College JOHN F. MUSTARD, Brown University DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ROBERT T. PAPPALARDO, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology SAUL PERLMUTTER, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MARCIA J. RIEKE, University of Arizona DAVID N. SPERGEL, Princeton University MEENAKSHI WADHWA, Arizona State University CLIFFORD M. WILL, Washington University THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN, University of Michigan MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate CHRISTINA O. SHIPMAN, Financial Officer SANDRA WILSON, Financial Assistant vi

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY PHILIP H. BUCKSBAUM, Stanford University, Chair DEBRA M. ELMEGREEN, Vassar College, Vice Chair RICCARDO BETTI, University of Rochester ADAM S. BURROWS, Princeton University TODD DITMIRE, University of Texas, Austin NATHANIEL J. FISCH, Princeton University PAUL FLEURY, Yale University S. JAMES GATES, University of Maryland LAURA H. GREENE, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign MARTHA P. HAYNES, Cornell University MARK B. KETCHEN, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center MONICA OLVERA DE LA CRUZ, Northwestern University PAUL SCHECHTER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology BORIS SHRAIMAN, Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics MICHAEL S. TURNER, The University of Chicago ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, BP International MICHAEL S. WITHERELL, University of California, Santa Barbara JAMES LANCASTER, Director DONALD C. SHAPERO, Senior Scholar DAVID LANG, Program Officer TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator (through June 2013) CARYN J. KNUTSEN, Associate Program Officer (through June 2013) BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface The National Research Council (NRC) has been conducting decadal surveys in the Earth and space sciences since 1964, and released the latest five surveys in the past 5 years, four of which were only completed in the past 3 years. The concept for the Lessons Learned in Decadal Planning in Space Science Workshop arose after the recent decadal surveys met unforeseen challenges to their implementation that required a closer look at the decadal survey process and how to improve this essential tool for strategic planning in the Earth and space sciences. Workshop moderators, panelists, and participants 1 lifted up the hood on the decadal survey process and scrutinized every element of the decadal surveys to determine what lessons can be gleaned from recent experiences and applied to the design and execution of future decadal surveys. The 2011 decadal survey on life and physical sciences—Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era 2—is not discussed because this workshop was initiated in response to a request from NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to examine the lessons learned from the conduct of the four most recent decadal surveys it had requested and sponsored. The decadal survey on life and physical sciences was sponsored by NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate and was initiated in response to language in the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-161) instructing NASA “to enter into an agreement with the National Research Council to conduct a ‘decadal survey’ of life and physical sciences in microgravity and partial gravity to establish priorities for research for the 2010-2020 decade.” Some 150 participants attended the workshop, held on November 12-13, 2012, in the auditorium of the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies in Irvine, California; the workshop was open to the public. The workshop’s structure and content were determined by an ad hoc planning committee co-chaired by Space Studies Board (SSB) chair Charles Kennel and SSB member Alan Dressler. The workshop statement of task was as follows: An ad hoc committee will plan and conduct a public workshop that will review and discuss key aspects of the most recent NRC decadal surveys in space science. The workshop will focus on identifying lessons learned and best practices from the most recent surveys: solar and space physics (2012), planetary science (2011), astronomy (2010), and Earth science and applications from space (2007). The workshop will also review and discuss the first round of NRC mid-decade assessment reports in astronomy (2007), planetary science (2007), solar and space physics (2009), and Earth science and applications from space (2012). The agenda of the workshop will be designed to promote discussion among science community leaders, federal agency program managers that use and implement survey recommendations, and other identified stakeholders, with a view to identifying ideas for the future improvement of the decadal survey and mid-decade review processes. The committee will develop the agenda topics, select and invite speakers and discussants, commission individually-authored summary papers from the presenters, and moderate the discussion at the workshop. A designated rapporteur will prepare a summary of the workshop. 1 The names, affiliations, and biographical sketches of all workshop moderators and panelists are provided in Appendix B. 2 National Research Council, Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011. ix

OCR for page R1
The workshop planning committee identified seven panel sessions they felt would best serve the purpose of the workshop and produce useful lessons learned: 3 1. Panel of Decadal Survey Chairs: A panel comprised of the chairs from the most recent decadal surveys who spoke about their experience as leaders of the surveys; 2. Panel on Agency-Specific Issues: A panel comprised of representatives from the four science divisions in NASA SMD who are the primary recipients of the decadal surveys, and one panelist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 3. Panel on Decadal Survey Program Formulation: A panel comprised of members from past decadal survey committees who discussed how the various communities came up with their framework of activities to prioritize, among other more general components of the decadal survey process; 4. Panel on Decadal Survey Program Formulation: The Role of Cost Estimation, Technical Evaluation, and Budget Projections in Prioritizing Missions: A panel comprised of members from past decadal survey committees who discussed how missions were costed and evaluated from a technical standpoint, which is handled through the cost and technical evaluation (CATE) process, and the effect of the CATE process on mission prioritization; 5. Panel on How to Plan for High-Profile Missions: A panel comprised of members from past decadal survey committees who discussed the role that high profile, a.k.a. flagship, missions play in decadal surveys and overall Earth and space science program strategies; 6. Panel on Incorporating International Perspectives into Future Decadal Planning: A panel comprised of representatives from international space agencies or organizations, including the U.S., who discussed ways to improve coordination with and solicit input from international stakeholders during the decadal survey process, among other issues; 7. Panel on Decadal Survey Stewardship: The Role of the Mid-decade Reviews and Standing Committees: A panel comprised of former decadal survey committees members and present-day standing committee members who discussed whom is responsible for stewarding the decadal surveys once they are released and how to ensure that the surveys are properly implemented. The workshop consisted, by and large, of panelist discussions and audience question and answer sessions with the panelists. Although moderators and panelists did provide individual introductory remarks at the beginning of each session, the only formal presentations were from Lennard Fisk (historical overview of the decadal surveys), John Grunsfeld (NASA’s perspective on the decadal surveys) and Michael Moloney (overviews of the decadal survey processes). 4 Most, but not all, of the panels conducted conference calls to identify and discuss the most important issues they wished to raise during the workshop. In addition, some panels held last-minute caucuses on the margins of the workshop to ensure that important issues raised by prior panels were adequately addressed. The overall goal of the workshop was to foster a dialog between all stakeholders to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the decadal survey process and how to improve it, with an eye towards maintaining the decadal survey’s integrity, objectivity, and quality. The workshop featured lively interactions between panelists and other participants, and the overall event was expertly summed up in concluding remarks on the second day by Charles Kennel (see Chapter 10). Major themes throughout the workshop included budgetary and policy uncertainty for the nation’s space exploration enterprise; how to improve community engagement before, during, and after the decadal survey process; how to improve the [mission] cost assessment and technical evaluation (CATE) process; what balance to strike between science goals and specific mission recommendations; the current advisory apparatus for the government’s Earth and space science activities; and how to foster a better understanding of how sponsors and other stakeholders interpret and use the decadal surveys. 3 The workshop agenda is provided in Appendix A. 4 The charts that were used in these presentations can be found in Chapter 5, “Decadal Survey Program Formulation and Opportunities for Improvement.” x

OCR for page R1
This summary has been prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The views contained in the report are those of individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Research Council. This summary was written using video recordings of the entire workshop proceedings. 5 Speakers attributed in this summary were not asked to review the workshop summary before its release. This workshop summary has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the summary meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this summary: George Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired), Marcia Rieke, University of Arizona, Kunio Sayanagi, Hampton University, Marcia Smith, Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC, and Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they did not see the final draft of the workshop summary before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Kenneth Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authors and the institution. 5 Video of the workshop is included on the CD enclosed with this report and is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_070954#webcast. xi

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents 1 SUMMARY OF KEYNOTE SPEAKERS REMARKS 1 An Historical Perspective on the Decadal Survey Process, 1 NASA Perspective, 3 2 OVERVIEW OF THE DECADAL SURVEY PROCESS 5 Introduction to the Decadal Surveys, 5 Overview of the Decadal Study Process, 6 Survey Organization, 6 Study Process, 8 3 DECADAL SURVEY CHAIRS’ PERSPECTIVES 14 Introductory Remarks, 14 Panel Discussion, 16 Decadal Survey Decision Rules, 16 Fidelity of Science and Mission Planning Among the Surveys, 16 Survey Steering Committee and Panel Interactions, 17 Governance and Interagency Considerations, 18 Workforce Issues and Research-to-Operations Transition, 18 Thoughts on Future Decadal Surveys and International Cooperation, 18 ITAR Reform, 19 Audience Interaction, 19 Augustine Committee and the Decadal Surveys, 20 Survey Panel Interactions, 20 Committee Formation Process, 20 Scope of the Decadal Survey, 20 Public Engagement, 21 Survey Roll-Out, 21 Decadal Survey Stewardship, 21 Mission Selection, 22 4 SPONSOR AGENCIES’ PERSPECTIVES 23 Introductory Remarks, 23 Panel Discussion, 25 Managing the Decadal Survey-NASA Relationship, 26 Decadal Survey Ground Rules and Preparatory Activities, 26 Continuity and Synergy Across Mission Portfolio, 27 Decadal Survey Stewardship, 27 Cost and Technical Evaluation, 28 Audience Interaction, 29 Role of the Decadal Surveys in Interagency Planning, 29 Tension Between Science and Missions, 30 The CATE Process, 30 xiii

OCR for page R1
Intra-/Inter-Agency Cooperation, 30 Decadal Survey Implementation, 31 Decadal Survey Preparatory Activities, 31 5 DECADAL SURVEY PROGRAM FORMULATION AND 33 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Introductory Remarks, 33 Panel Discussion, 34 Science Goals, 35 Source of Program and Prioritization Criteria, 36 NASA Perspective, 39 Audience Interaction, 39 Implementing the Three-Worlds Scenario, 39 Improving Mission Management, 40 Tension Between Science and Missions, 40 6 THE ROLE OF COST ESTIMATES, TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS, AND 42 BUDGET PROJECTIONS IN PRIORITIZING MISSIONS Introductory Remarks, 42 Panel Discussion, 44 Tailoring the CATE Process to Serve Future Decadal Surveys, 44 Accommodating Evolving Science Requirements in the CATE Process, 45 The Role of Mission Advocates in the CATE Process, 47 Implementing the CATE as an Integrated, Iterative Process, 49 The CATE as a Component of an Unconstrained Scientific Process, 50 Audience Interaction, 52 Interface Between the CATE Process and Program Formulation, 52 Effect of CATE on the Decadal Survey Process, 52 Feedback in the CATE Process and Schedule Flexibility, 53 Credibility of the CATE Process, 53 CATE for Missions Lacking Precedent, 54 Risk Consideration in the CATE Process, 55 7 HOW TO PLAN FOR HIGH-PROFILE MISSIONS 56 Introductory Remarks, 56 Panel Discussion, 57 Audience Interaction, 58 Addressing High-Profile Missions Specifically in Decadal Surveys, 58 International High-Profile Missions, 58 High-Profile Mission Timescales, 59 Stewardship of High-Profile Missions, 59 8 INCORPORATING INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES IN FUTURE 60 DECADAL PLANNING Introductory Remarks, 60 Panel Discussion, 61 Earth Science Perspective on International Cooperation, 61 NASA Perspective on International Cooperation, 62 JAXA Perspective on International Cooperation, 63 ESA Perspective on International Cooperation, 64 ESSC Perspective on International Cooperation, 65 xiv

OCR for page R1
Audience Interaction, 66 International Participation in the Decadal Survey Process, 67 Challenges and Benefits of International Cooperation, 68 Suggested Mechanisms for International Cooperation, 69 Thoughts on U.S.-European Cooperation, 69 Discussion of COSPAR and Its Role, 70 9 DECADAL SURVEY STEWARDSHIP: THE ROLE OF THE MID-DECADE 71 REVIEWS AND STANDING COMMITTEES Introductory Remarks, 71 Panel Discussion, 74 Audience Interaction, 74 NASA Advisory Apparatus, 75 Midterm Assessments, 75 Community Engagement, 75 Decadal Survey Utilization, 76 Decadal Survey Preparatory Activities, 76 Decadal Survey Leadership and Structure, 76 10 CONCLUDING REMARKS 78 APPENDIXES A Workshop Agenda 83 B Biographies of Planning Committee Members, Moderators, Panelists, and Staff 88 xv

OCR for page R1