Hi you guys, I am Lindsay. I am the host of Inside the Hymn on YouTube and I am so excited to be here working on the Seamwork Chantel dress.  So this dress has a lot of different features on it. We've got a collar, we've got a button placket with a facing, we've got a set in sleeve, lots of really great opportunities for me to share all my best tips and tricks with you guys. If you missed it, I have an episode zero that talks about fit alterations that I made, fabrication. So if you need help with all of that kind of stuff, go check out episode zero and it'll help you with all of your prep work. I also have a free download that corresponds directly with this so-along. It is a workbook. So if you need help staying organized, staying on track, all of those kinds of things, download the workbook. I've linked it in the description box for you guys. It's completely free like I said. So be sure to check that out but without further ado, let's get sewing. Okay, so our very first step is to stay stitch along the necklines of A, C and J. So I have all of those here.  So I'm gonna come in a quarter of an inch. You wanna start at the shoulder and come to the center. Same thing with A, you're going to start at the shoulder and go to the center. And then for C, you're going to start at the shoulder and go to the center here. Break your stitches, go to the shoulder and stitch here. And that prevents all of this from stretching out along the body. Okay, so the next steps are to take your center back, which is C, the biggest one that you cut on the fold and attach it to the side back, which is D. They tell you in the instructions to sew this together and then finish your seams separately. I'm gonna finish the seams first, then sew it together and then press it open. I think that it's easier to finish the seams, especially in a serger before all the seams are done. So let me go do all of these vertical seams at my serger. Okay, easy peasy. For what it's worth, if you don't have a serger, Hong Kong seams, flat-felled seams, even faux flat-felled seams would be really pretty on this pattern as well. Okay, so we've got our center back. She looks like this and we are gonna take each of these panels, the side backs and attach them along these long edges. So the one that's opposite of your arm, so the one that has the curve goes to the inside. All right, so you've got lots and lots of little helpful hints through here to keep you lined up. So if this is our side back D and this is our center back, C, they go together actually like this. Yep, and so you've got your circles matching. You've got these notches matching and you've got these notches matching. So I start with the notches first. All right, then go to the lower notch. There we go, and here we go. All right, so once these two are lined up, then you can line up your bottom hem and your top hem or your top, I don't know, this is just shoulder, I guess. So all the parts that are weird are gonna be in between here and in between the two notches as well. So we're just gonna ease these in. Remember when you're easing, because this one here is bigger than this one here. So when you're easing these two things in, remember they match up at the seam line. They do not match up at the raw edges, but you just have to trust the process and trust that when you get to your machine, even if they're wrinkly-winkly on the edges, they will match up at the seam line. Okay, so now I've got three pins there. That's pretty good. Okay, and then through the middle here, this looks pretty good. I'm glad we're starting with the back to the front. The side panel is gonna be a little bit harder, but it's the same process. It's just a little bit more curvier on the front, obviously, because you have more curves. Okay, we're just matching it up, kind of splitting the difference between, like start in the middle, and then split the difference again like this. That way, it's all evenly distributed throughout this little area here. Okay, so that's gonna be good enough for me. Obviously, feel free to pin more, but can you see how this is bigger than this here, right? And then up here, this one on top is bigger than the one on bottom. That's the plan. That's how we're gonna get those really pretty curves. That's how you get this really pretty shape through your side. So you're gonna do this to this side, repeat for the other side as well, and then you're gonna do the exact same thing for the front pieces, which are A and B. You're gonna attach A and B the exact same way that we've done here. All right, I'm working on the front now. Do not forget to surge your raw edges or finish them however you're finishing them. However, you do not have to finish this long straight edge on the front. That's gonna be covered up with your facing. I finished my own accident, but you don't have to. Okay, remember, I said at the seam line, they will all match up. So even if they don't match at the raw edges, they will match as you sew them at the seam line and it looks really beautiful. So just go really slowly. Use a larger stitch length if you have to. I'm one of 3.5 and really use your fingers to feel and make sure that it's flat and smoothed out at the seam line as you're sewing. Here's the front as it came together at the seam line as well. So pretty. All right, so if you've ever watched any of my videos, you're probably looking at these instructions right now and thinking, uh-oh, what is she gonna do? Sorry about the shaky camera. I don't do floppy pockets. And normally when there is a waist seam or some kind of horizontal seam, I will alter my pocket so that they get anchored into that seam. There is not a horizontal seam on this pattern. I hemmed and hawed about whether or not I was gonna anchor the pocket into this seam, but ultimately decided that for this semi-clothesfitted body skimming design, I didn't want pockets. So I am not going to be doing any of the pocket instructions. If you want the floppy pockets in your dress by all means, you add the pockets. There are a couple ways that you can see a video tutorial of the pockets. One is through Seamwork's tutorials. I'll have a link in the description box for that. As well as I have an e-course that has not in addition to pockets, it also has a ton of other tutorials about princess seams that we've done here, but also hems, facings, a lot of things that we'll be doing throughout this process. So a couple of different ways that you can see how to do the pocket installation. If that is going to be your design preference. Okay, so good news is, if you're skipping the pockets, we are just gonna move right along and pin up our side seams. This should be a pretty straightforward one-to-one situation here, meaning they line up equally. There's no easing in or anything like that. But still, I like to do the top and then the hem and then get everything going in the middle. There are some dots and notches. If you wanna match those up, make sure you're on the right track. You should be doing that. All right, one more pin up here and then we'll do the other side and then sew them together. For what it's worth on this design regarding pockets, I do think it would be super cute to do like a patch pocket on the outside, either two on the front, two on the back. You can definitely get your pockets going, get pockets on this dress, if you love dresses with pockets, without putting them in the side seam. You know, think outside the box a little bit. Okay, maybe one more pin up here and then to the sewing machine. All right, so the next step is to sew the shoulder seams together. We're just gonna stay here at the machine because it's a pretty straightforward little thing here. For what it's worth, you might want to baste your shoulder seams and then go ahead and try this on for fit. We have a lot of different vertical seams here working to get a good fit. So try it on, let it out at the bust or take it in at the bust, hip, waist, all of those areas, you have many different places where you can adjust for fit. Princess seams on the front, side seams on the side. So now's a really good chance to go ahead and do that.  All right, so that is going to be our video for today. That's gonna be today's lessons. Princess seams are not for the faint of heart, especially if you've never done them before. So take it easy, right? Don't try and rush through this process. I'll be back in the next video for the next few steps, which focus on the collar.


and the power of the flight control. And now, you're going to turn to Roger, just to confirm you're looking for the approach walker. Correct, sir. Coming to the approach walker.


The Ministry of Health and Wellness continues efforts to ensure St. Lucia achieves herd immunity. The island is soon to receive the third batch of vaccines from the Covax facility. Health officials noting a slight decline in the uptake of the vaccine, especially the second dose is urging members of the public to get both doses as this ensures full protection. We have more in this report. The Ministry of Health and Wellness is continuing a robust national vaccination campaign, the island over. Health officials continue to assess the uptake of the vaccine and indicate that the highest uptake is noted among the 50 years and up age group, followed by those 25 to 49 years of age and the lowest being amongst individuals 18 to 24 years of age. Assistant Principal Nursing Officer and Immunization Manager, Techleisure Baptiste explained that this is consistent with both the first and second doses of the vaccine. It is also noted that the second dose uptake is about 71% of that of the first dose, bearing in mind that we probably have approximately 14%, which is just about 3,990% to date, who are not yet due for the second shot, taking into consideration the 10 weeks interval between vaccines. But it has also been noted that we still have a significant amount of people, a significant proportion of persons, about 29% of persons who would have received their first dose, who have not taken their first dose of the vaccine, their second dose of the vaccine. In light of this, an appeal goes out to persons who have not taken their second dose of the vaccine to do so. Being partially vaccinated, of course, with one dose of the vaccine, will not afford the full protection that the vaccine affords. Speaking to the stock management of vaccines, the Immunization Manager explained that St. Lucia has received three main shipments of vaccines, two of which were from the allocated number of vaccines through the Covax facility, and one shipment donated by the Government of India. The allocation from the Covax facility was to cover 20% of the population. St. Lucia Jabatis explained awaits the third installment of vaccines from the Covax facility, which has been delayed due to a number of reasons, including vaccine logistics and limited supply. She assured, however, that this does not affect the immunization of the public. For the immunization program, it's not a significant concern, especially at a time when we note slow uptake of the vaccine. The spacing of the arrival of vaccine shipments to St. Lucia has allowed sufficient time for use of our stock before the next major shipment arrives in country. Two of the previous batches of vaccines that we would have received had expiration dates of June 2021. As at the 30th of June 2021, there were no doses of vaccines from these batches left at our central stores. What this means is that whatever doses of these batches of vaccines that were still here would have been in circulation at the various health centers and vaccination sites. And these would have been used up to the last day of the vaccine shelf life, which is the expiration date. Remaining stock of vaccines at central stores will expire in two months time. The Ministry of Health and Wellness continues to plan accordingly. The immunization program and by extension the Ministry of Health continues to carefully plan its vaccine logistics to ensure that wastage is reduced or is at minimal when an expiration date comes, especially with vaccines that have very short shelf life such as the COVID-19 vaccine and also the influenza vaccines. The same holds for all other vaccines in the program. The program holds strongly to the first in, first out principle. What this means for us in the immunization program is that every effort is made to use a vaccines with earlier expiration dates first to avoid wastage. In some instances, it means collecting vaccines from facilities with excess stock on hand and redistribute amongst the facilities, especially to areas where the uptick is highest. A third installment of vaccines from the COVID facilities expected late July into early August.


Greetings, friends. My name is Philip Campbell, and you might know me from the story of civilization series from Tan Books. Today I am thrilled that you are going to be joining me for the story of the church, which is a fascinating journey through the history of the church from the time of the apostles right up to the current age. So I think you're going to find this very interesting. I know I really loved writing this, and I'm very excited to start guiding us through all this material. So we're just going to dive right into this here. In the introduction to our text, we discussed the idea of symbolism, how things in our lives symbolize other things. Like, let's take a birthday cake. A birthday cake, what's it made of? It's made of things like eggs, flour, sugar, frosting. But of course, a cake is much more than just the things it is made out of. It has a symbolic value. It symbolizes something far beyond its ingredients. There's more to it than meets the eye. It calls to mind all sorts of things. If you're celebrating your birthday or a sibling's birthday, this calls to mind the joy of them in the family, the circumstances of their birth, celebrating all that person is. So we can see that the cake is a symbol for something much greater than just what it's made out of. Now, the church is like this as well. It's more than just the sum of its parts. It's very easy to see the visible structure of the Catholic church. If you walk into any Catholic parish, you're going to see candles, you're going to see sacred books, the priest alters, the church has buildings, property, parking lots, everything that many other human organizations have. But the question isn't about what is the church made up of materially. What is behind these realities? What is the what is the essence behind all these things? The catechism of the Catholic church says the church itself is like a sacrament of God's communion with man. What is a sacrament? Well, without waiting too far into theology, I think we could say that a sacrament is a kind of symbol, but it's a very special symbol. Sacraments are symbols that bring about the things they symbolize. Let's use baptism as an example. So in baptism, we know the person being baptized has water poured on them or sprinkled or sometimes they're dunked. Now, what does this water symbolize? The water symbolizes the washing away of original sin, but here is the important distinction. The water does not merely symbolize this. The water, the right of baptism actually does the thing it symbolizes. Baptism actually cleanses from original sin. So a sacrament is a symbol that affects the thing that it symbolizes. Now, the church is very much like this. It's not only a symbol of God's communion with mankind, but it actually makes that communion possible. Because God did not call us individually. He calls us in through and with a community, the community of the church that He Himself founded when He sent His Son to earth. This is why the church exists. Now, if this is a little bit heavy on the theology, I apologize, but it's very essential because this book is a story of how the church has fulfilled that mission throughout the ages. How that original mission that Jesus Christ was sent to earth to accomplish to make all people of every race, men, women, slave-free, Greek, Gentile, the whole nine yards, everybody, to bring them into the family of God. So how can the church bring about God's communion with men? That is really the crux of this book, the story of the church fulfilling this mission. Now, this story actually begins on Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit. You're probably familiar with the story. You can read it in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in chapter two, but we'll summarize it here. After the ascension of Jesus, the apostles were commanded to wait in Jerusalem and pray for the coming of the Holy Spirit. And after they had been praying for nine days, the Holy Spirit comes to them in the upper room. There's this rushing of wind and tongues of fire appear over their heads and they start praising God and everybody that's there in Jerusalem that hears this, hears them speaking in their own languages. The people from Parthia hear it in Parthian. If you're Roman, you hear it in Latin, Greek and Greek, Jewish and Hebrew. It's a miracle, the miracle of tongues. And this Holy Spirit that is given to the apostles on this day was called by Pope Pius XII, the soul of the church. And this is really the best way to understand the giving of the Spirit. What did Pius XII mean by calling it the soul of the church? Well, just as your soul animates the body, so the Holy Spirit animates the church. When the Holy Spirit was given to the church on the day of Pentecost, this became the source of the church's power. This enabled the apostles to carry out their mission and it's the source of the sacramental ministry and power that the apostles and their successors, the bishops and the priests have to this very day. Now, this power given by the Holy Spirit is demonstrated remarkably in the early church. We see it in the book of Acts and also in some of the very early Christian writings from the apostolic age, miracles of tongues, various healings, mass conversions of thousands of people. The book of Acts says that on the day of Pentecost at Peter's preaching, thousands of the hearers were converted at his preaching and witnessing the miracle of tongues. By the way, if you ever go to Jerusalem, you can still visit the upper room where this miracle of the day of Pentecost happened. The upper room in Jerusalem today is like a Gothic structure dating from the time of the Crusades. The original upper room had been refurbished and worked over during the Crusader Age as a way to honor the events of such importance that happened there. So you can still go to the upper room today. It's called the Seneca, which means the dining area in Latin. But at any rate, the early Christian community that grew out of an after Pentecost was a very extraordinary movement led by the apostles who were the witnesses of Christ's resurrection, the ones Jesus sent to preach his message of salvation. The Holy Spirit worked through and with the apostles to build up the church. And they went about initially just through the cities of Palestine, Judea, preaching largely to a Jewish audience. Of course, that would later change and spread to the Gentiles as well. The apostles would be the first bishops. And in Greek, this word bishop is episcopos, which means overseer, the one who's in charge. They were helped by elders who were called presbyters. And this is where we get the English word priest from presbyter. And then we are told in Acts, I think seven, how the early apostles instituted the office of the deaconate and deacon means servants. This is because the church was growing so much. They had so many poor to take care of and widows and so much ministry that they needed help. And so they ordained the deacons.  The text talks about the various missions of some of the apostles that we know about the places they went to. St. Mark going to Alexandria, Egypt and St. Thomas to India and so on and so forth. Now Christianity might have remained a Jewish movement had it not been for the conversion of St. Paul. Paul, of course, began as a Pharisee who was persecuting the early Christian movement, but then he was converted by a profound encounter with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. And Paul received from Christ a special mission to take the gospel to the Gentiles. That is to the non-Jews, to the pagans of the Roman Empire. And so Paul not only brought the gospel to the Gentiles, but also through his theological writings, helped explain the Christian faith in a profound way. And St. Paul made more contributions to the writing of the New Testament than any other apostle. Of course, we have the book of Romans, 1st, 2nd Corinthians, all the various letters of Paul to like the Galatians, to Thessalonica, all these different letters than the pastoral epistles to Timothy, Titus. So Paul, a lot of the New Testament is the development of Paul's theology as he's writing to these different churches. Now the testimony of these apostles was sealed with martyrdom and all of the apostles underwent some sort of trial. All of them suffered death except for St. John. But this was especially true in the Church of Rome where Peter and Paul both suffered as part of the persecution of Nero. Rome had caught on fire and there was a great terrible destruction through the city. The emperor Nero was looking for scapegoats to blame the fire on. And so he settled on this little sect of the Christians and they were both executed as part of the persecution of Nero. Peter crucified upside down. Paul, because he was a Roman citizen, was granted the privilege of being beheaded. Wasn't that kind of them to let Paul be beheaded? Very kind of the Romans. But so everywhere we look, the church is sealed with the blood of the martyrs and this in turn leads to the growth of the church. Now we're going to see more of this as we go, persecution, issues between Jews and Gentiles. All these themes are going to be revisited in subsequent chapters. But I think that's enough for now. In our next lecture, we're going to take a look at some of the important persons and events in the church in the first generation after the apostles. So I hope you'll come on back for more.


Hey, I am Greg Sussman joined today by Megan Nunez of Fandals taking a look at our three best baseball bets of the day What's going on Megan? Not a whole lot. Just trying to get some winners today. We're trying to get winners every day So let's start this edition of the hurry up in Colorado where the Rockies and Giants go at it this afternoon It's Kyle Freeland on the mound against Logan Webb You're going back to this first five under at Coors Field It's dangerous for people but you are not scared ever you like the first five under this afternoon So I know how can I take a course under when yesterday the score was 23 to 5 I had the Rockies and was just a little bit off But today you have Kyle Freeland going and he knows how to pitch at Coors and against this Giants Team who he was tagged for three runs Last week against this team, but that's the most he's given up against this Giants team since last year On the flip side you have Webb for the Giants who's looked great Only giving up one run in five innings. So again, well this line Was awful yesterday and I was way off This pitching matchup points towards the under and I really think these two guys can keep it under seven and a half Combined 28 runs between these two teams yesterday So maybe they're all run out the door hates that that can be found at Coors Field today Kyle Freeland has pitched well as Megan mentioned this year and Logan Webb He says you just enough really talk about the first five Let me score the 20 runs after the five innings are done And we'll see what happens with the under seven and a half in those first five innings These will play according to Megan Moving on to our next game six to the Sanchez was let's talk of baseball last week And he was up today against the Toronto Blue Jays that game starts at 640 p.m Eastern time and you're betting against the rookie in this next start for him John John Ryu on the mound for the Blue Jays and they are the favorites here and you like him anyway So I really like the Blue Jays in this spot tonight They're coming off a tough loss against the Marlins and then you have Ryu in your ace pitching tonight He's been great this year only giving up Two runs and his last three starts And on the flip side you have six to Sanchez who really has shown some dominant stuff But I have a feeling that he's going to be on a pitch count tonight And he's gonna have to eventually turn it over to that shaky Marlins bullpen The Blue Jays rested some of their their best hitters yesterday and arguably their best hitter and Teosco Teosco Hernandez So I just think that this Blue Jays team is coming out for a win today And their bats are gonna be woken up and just take advantage of that Marlins bullpen all together The Blue Jays went for it at the trade deadline So the Miami Marlins grabbing starting Marte which obviously worked out well for them last night Marte helping him with the victory Brandon Kinsler in that bullpen doing his job But Megan does not believe it's gonna happen two days in a row The Blue Jays are the better team They have a better pitcher on the mound or at least a more consistent pitcher We'll see what six those Sanchez can do in this start but he'll show you and the Blue Jays the play today Finally one last game to get to and it's the Rays and the Yankees a series of the Rays have dominated all season long But not last at the Yankees were able to come back and pick up a victory today It's Charlie Morton taking on it Jordan Montgomery and the Rays are plus one of 14 They're dogs today Even though Charlie Morton one of the better pitchers in baseball over the last couple of years the Rays have Having Yankees number you think that continues today Megan.  Well, I'm not gonna say what side is right I am going to pick a side today and that is the Rays In my opinion the Rays have as you said the best pitcher for the situation going in Charlie Morton The guy is just cool calm and collected Which is probably why he was the best pitcher for the Astros in that 2017 World Series run I just don't think that the chirping is gonna bother him I think he's gonna put his head down and pitch this game like Nobody's business Also, I think manager cash. I think he's definitely playing this game to win I don't think he's gonna be throwing at people. I think he's going to be playing this like it is a playoff game I think he's gonna go to his bullpen and with all of this Yankees injuries They're just not clicking right now in my opinion And I just think that this Rays team with the plus money is the play today Kevin cash has a bullpen of pitchers I can throw 98 so that we'll see what happens today both teams are gonna be worn We'll see how many pitches are up and in but Charlie Morton according to Megan the right pitcher on the mound in this situation For the Tampa Bay Rays There you have it those the winning picks as Megan said all we're trying to do today Just win a little money. So hopefully we'll get that done Megan unions. We appreciate the time. Good luck today. Thank you All right tomorrow on the program time. Thank you. We'll join me. We keep taking a look at the NFL We're one week away people. Let's get excited Megan unions. I'm Greg Suspin. See you all tomorrow right here on the fans over here


YouTube as well. So now we'll click go live and join the folks there too. All right, we are at the top of the hour. So let's go ahead and get started. So hello everyone, and welcome to the June NASA Night Sky Network member webinar. We're hosting tonight's webinar as usual from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in San Francisco, California. We're very excited to welcome our guest speaker, Dr. Elliot Quadert from Princeton University. Welcome to everyone joining us on YouTube. We're very happy to have you with us. These webinars are monthly events for members of the NASA Night Sky Network. For more information about the NASA Night Sky Network and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, check the links in the chat, which I'll put in in just a couple moments. But before I introduce Elliot, here's Dave with just a couple of announcements. Awesome. Hi, everyone. Happy solstice, first of all. Happy summer for those of you, I assume, most of you, or if you're in the hemisphere or a happy winter, or happy, I suppose, for the southern hemisphere. Welcome. And for those of you along the equatorial regions, congratulations on another beautiful day. Let's see here. I've just got a couple brief things to tell you about. Just if you liked our last summer social hangout, we have another one coming up Wednesday, July 13th, 2022, which will be planning for International Observe the Moon Night, which is going to be held on October 1st this year. We just want to know what your plans are for International Observe the Moon Night, and what are you doing something special in your communities, your general plans, and what are your favorite moon observing activities? We're discussing all things sooner on July 13th, and we'll be joined by Kayla Berry from NASA's International Observe the Moon Night planning team. And we may have a few other special guests, so we'll have more about that in our next newsletter. So watch out for that. I'll put the link to that in our Zoom chat. That's really the big thing. Oh, of course, I am obligated to remind you to post and report on your events to the Night Sky Network calendar as we are near the close of quarter two for reporting. And we'll be having some prizes and toolkit shipping out by the middle of next month after those have been turned in. And of course, one last thing is I just really hope that you have clear skies and a clear view of the east and the southeast for tomorrow morning or for the next few days or week or two, or, you know, as we can see this beautiful show of five planets and a crescent moon, which that's this week. So, yeah, let us hope for some great views, everyone. And with that, Brian, back to you. All right. Thanks, Dave. For those of you on Zoom, you can find the chat window and the Q&A window at the bottom edge of the Zoom window on your desktop. Just kind of hover your cursor down there and they should pop up. Please feel free to greet each other in the chat, making sure that you select everyone in the little button and so that it doesn't just go to the host and the panelists. If you have any technical difficulties, you could also let us know in the chat. Please put all your questions in the Q&A window. Don't be shy about putting those in early. There's a lot of content here and so we might actually get to some of your questions during the program. So if you've got something that you really want to hear about while Elliot's talking, go ahead and pop it in the Q&A and we'll see if we can get it answered while we're on that particular topic. You could also send us an email for any challenges at night sky info at astrosociety.org. So I'm going to hit the record again here. So again, welcome to the June webinar of the NASA Night Sky Network. This month, we welcome Dr. Elliot Quatter to our webinar. Elliot is a professor of astrophysical sciences in the Charles, a young professor of astronomy at Princeton University. He's an astrophysics theorist who works on a wide range of problems, including stars and black holes, plasma astrophysics and how galaxies form. He's received a number of national awards for his research and he's an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences. So please welcome Dr. Elliot Quatter. Thank you. It's great to be here. It's really neat to see on the chat where everybody is joining from. So what I was asked to do today and I'm excited to tell you a little bit about is to give you an overview of the astronomy decadal survey that was performed in 2020, roughly. So my goals really are to explain to you why we do this kind of survey, what its goals are, what the process is and what some of the recommendations were that came out of this particular exercise. I was one of about 20 people that were on what's called the Steering Committee. The name of that is meant to convey that we sort of steer the process of the entire decadal survey which in total involved hundreds of people and as you'll see large swaths actually of the entire professional astronomical community in the U.S. So do feel free if you have questions as we go. Feel free to ask so that they get answered along the way. So in short, a decadal survey is a prioritization exercise for how the United States government spends its money in science and astronomy in particular for what we're talking about today. And the history of this actually goes back to 1964. Astronomy was the first field to do this prioritization exercise and since then it's been widely adopted by many different scientific communities from planetary science to other areas of physics to areas of biology, etc. And the basic motivation for it is the idea that by coming together as a community, the science community can sort of speak with one voice about what it thinks the most important science questions and the most important facilities, telescopes largely is what we're talking about today, what the most important telescopes to develop are that can actually address those science questions. And by having it be a prioritization process where the community comes together and does this in a systematic way, it really allows the community to speak to the federal government with one voice and say these are what we think are the most pressing science questions. These are the telescopes that we think should be built to address those science questions. And that really amplifies the impact of those recommendations because it's this sort of coherent speaking with one voice that the community is able to do. So many, if not most of the large telescopes that you know and love, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Very Large Array, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope, the soon to be launched Roman Space Telescope, the currently being built Verreroobin Observatory, these are all telescopes that were recommended as part of previous decadal surveys. So I'm listing here the year in which some of these were done. So it's roughly every 10 years that it's done and then what the particular recommendation was. It started out because it was in the early 1960s. There actually wasn't a huge amount of space astronomy. There was some, but it was mostly a ground-based effort. So the original one was actually just focused on ground-based astronomy, but as time has gone on, of course, the importance of space astronomy has grown. And so the current efforts encompass both observations from the ground and observations from space. And so this is again some of the history where you can see the impact that these efforts have had leading to many of the most important and scientifically productive telescopes in operation still today. The Very Large Array, Hubble, Chandra are all still in operation. So who does it? The decadal surveys are sort of commissioned by the parts of the federal government that support scientific research. So that's NASA for space-based efforts and the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy for ground-based. But they don't themselves, NASA and the NSF and the DOE, don't themselves sort of carry out the prioritization exercise. Rather, they look to the National Academy of Sciences to carry out that task. So for those of you who don't know, the National Academy of Sciences was started actually by Abraham Lincoln when he was president. He signed the charter that established the National Academy of Sciences and it was established with the explicit goal of providing independent advice to the federal government on matters of science and later engineering, medicine, and related discipline. So it's an independent entity separate from the National Science Foundation or NASA, which provides sort of independent and peer-reviewed advice to the federal government. It does this in many, many, many different areas and the decadal surveys, these prioritization exercises are one example of the functioning of this advice that the National Academy of Sciences provides to the federal government. And this is a peer-reviewed study. So we, as it said on the first slide here, we ended up writing a report that was over 600 pages long. That report was peer-reviewed. It actually was by far the most intense peer-review process that I've ever been a part of. I've written hundreds of journal articles that have all been peer-reviewed, but this peer-review process was much more rigorous. You were required to respond in detail to every single comment, criticism, a request for a change, etc. that a huge number, something like 20 different people provided reviews of the report. So there was like a three-month period where all we were doing was reading the criticism and, you know, some compliments, but of course mostly focusing on the criticism and suggestions for changes and revising the document in response. Okay. So one reason for stressing this that it's NASA and the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy that are the, so you can think of them as the constituents, right? They are the primary users of this advice. And so one thing that's important to recognize is that you'll notice I have not put up here universities or the American Astronomical Society. So the Decadal Survey process really is one that's focused on providing advice to NASA, NSF, DOE about how to spend money, how to optimally spend the federal government's, you know, scientific dollars to get basically the most science for a certain amount of money. And what that means is that certain topics that are extremely important for the functioning of universities such as how we educate undergraduate students and graduate students, those are addressed a little bit in the Decadal Survey, but not very much because that's not really the primary goal of this prioritization exercise. It's not about how to optimally teach undergraduate students astronomy. It's about how to prioritize the use of the federal government's money. So that's just important in terms of thinking about the topics that I'll tell you that we addressed. There'll be some that you may think are missing. And in many cases, the reason that they're missing is because it's really not part of the purview of this particular prioritization exercise. So indeed, a very important part of this process is that there's a complicated negotiation between the federal agencies and the National Academy of Sciences on what is the scope of this prioritization exercise? What are we supposed to address? And what are we not supposed to address? And this is all public. You can go read what's called the statement of task that sort of gets at what are the topics to be addressed? And what are the topics that really shouldn't be addressed because they're outside the purview of this particular exercise? And so part of what we did in this process is you do spend a lot of time thinking about what it is specifically that the NSF and NASA have asked you to focus on because you want to be responsive to what they're the most interested in hearing advice on. So distilling this statement of task down into a few bullet points, I would say roughly can be summarized as follows. So one is to review the sort of state of the field. What is the current state of the scientific enterprise, the current state of our understanding in all of astronomy and astrophysics? And in so doing, identify what are the most exciting and compelling science challenges for the next 10 or 20 years? In addition, having identified those compelling science areas, the primary goal of the Decadal Survey, this prioritization process, is to identify strategies for how to actually go about answering those science questions using facilities that can be developed over the next 10 or so years. And part of that includes really prioritizing, saying, you know, this is the most important thing that can be done in the coming decade to advance our scientific understanding. And although our advice is to the U.S. Federal agencies, of course, part of this has to take into account the international scientific landscape, the fact that very large projects are often international. Or in addition, right, we don't necessarily want to duplicate if the European Space Agency, which is Europe's analog of NASA, if they're launching a telescope to do a particular science, then we don't necessarily want to duplicate that. We want to find something that's complementary. And so understanding that international landscape is very important. The other thing that's somewhat unique to the United States, that's different from other countries, is that in the U.S., there's actually a large private investment in scientific research, and in particular, in astronomy. There's a lot of telescopes, ground-based telescopes, that are primarily funded by private universities, not federal investment. And so that balance between what the federal government funds and what private universities fund is a sort of important one to bear in mind as part of our process. One of the things we grappled with a lot as part of this survey is that large astronomical projects really don't take a decade anymore. To develop, they take much longer than that. The James Webb Space Telescopes, which Space Telescope Singular, which has so spectacularly launched and seems to be working beautifully, right, took over 20 years to come to fruition. And so really calling it a decadal survey is a little bit of a misnomer now, because the projects take a very long time to develop. But we don't want the scientific community to be waiting for 20 years to get science out. And so there's a balance between projects that might take 20 years to come to fruition and ones that might only take a few years to come to fruition. And part of the goal of this prioritization process is to really understand that balance, the health and vitality of the scientific community relies on having telescopes that are producing data now, while at the same time building ones that will make breakthrough discoveries on a 10 or 20 year time scheme. Elliot, we have kind of an interesting question that came up. Karo asked, does it help the lobby legislators to obtain funding for research? So I think in general, the answer to that is yes, namely that the lobbying both by you as, you know, individual constituents of a particular house representative or senator to support basic science research is certainly important. And then also there's a large effort by the American Astronomical Society and related astronomical societies to lobby more broadly on behalf of the recommendations of the Decadal Survey to sort of bring those recommendations to the attention of the House and Senate subcommittees on science. And so part of what many people who are involved in the Decadal Survey process actually end up doing is going to Washington DC and pitching the conclusions of the Decadal Survey process to relevant lawmakers in the federal government. And so that actually is an important part of the process. So after the process of prioritization is done and the 600 page report is finished, an equally important part of the process is keeping those recommendations in the eye of the federal government for the coming decade. So that they actually continue to capture the attention of the relevant funding committees and committees in the House and Senate and so have a chance of actually coming to fruition. So that actually is a very good question and it's an important part of the process. You know, there are a couple of other things that I'll emphasize about the process. One of the things increasingly is to have off ramps. You know, if projects are ballooning in cost or time to completion, to have clear guidance to NASA and the National Science Foundation about when they might no longer want to continue to do a project because it's not scientifically worth the dollars that it's taking. I think that's a very important thing for the scientific community to acknowledge is right. We're not going to do all projects at all costs. We have to make difficult decisions. And so that's part of the prioritization process. And then lastly, as I'll come to in a second, another part of the this prioritization process is increasingly to recognize the human element of doing science. And so to provide an assessment of sort of the health of the profession overall and the individuals who are actually doing the science and what can be done to have the most scientifically productive workforce, the most well trained workforce issues like that. I just was noting the comment in the Q&A. Okay. So here's kind of a flow chart idea of how the process works. The process really is driven by the entire astronomical community. So early on in the process, which took over two years to complete overall, there was a call for input from the scientific community, which led to the writing by the members of the astronomical community of science white papers and then what we're called program or project white papers, which are basically just members of the scientific community saying, you know, this is what I think is the most exciting science question that can be addressed in the coming decade. And then this is an example of a project that could try to address that question. Each of these white papers was on average something like 10 pages long. So if you do the multiplication, right, that's 5,700 pages, 3,000 pages of these white papers. So it's a huge investment by the astronomical community overall in trying to identify exciting science and exciting projects that can carry out that science. And then what happens is that there are different panels, science panels, and then project or program panels that distill all of that input and try to identify a small number of priority science questions and a small number of projects that can address those priority science questions. And then lastly, there's one overall main committee called the steering committee, which consists of about 20 people. That is the committee that I was part of in this last decadal survey, the 2021. It was co-chaired by Rob Kennekat and Fiona Harrison. So they sort of led the overall effort. And there were about 20 scientists and engineers who were on this primary committee who took all of this input from the community and from the science panels and project panels and came up with the prioritized set of what we think the most exciting sciences and what we think some of the most exciting projects to address that science would be. And so it all kind of flows from the community through these different groups, ultimately, to the steering committee who makes the sort of final set of recommendations. Elliott, our names are always kind of the bane of things like this. So George asks, what does SOPSI panel mean? Yeah, so SOPSI is the panel that was tasked with looking at the state of the profession. So SOP stands for state of the profession and SI stands for societal impact. So this is the panel that was tasked at looking at the sort of health of the scientific workforce, the diversity of the scientific workforce, what can be done to improve that. And I'll talk a little bit more about that. So that was sort of a separate panel from these science panels and these project panels. Good question. So this just gives you a list of the science panels. What areas were they in? So sort of covered all of astronomy from cosmology, dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang, through to black holes and neutron stars, to the sun, to exoplanets, astrobiology, the solar system, not directly exploration of the solar system with satellites. So that, you know, things like sending Mars landers, that's actually the purview of a different CATL survey, which is the planetary science to CATL survey, but things like the Hubble Space Telescope observing Jupiter or Saturn or Uranus is very much within the purview of the astronomy to CATL. So those were the science panels. They gave input in terms of scientific priorities to these more project oriented panels, which consisted of trying to do projects from space, projects on the ground at optical or infrared wavelengths or radio wavelengths. Increasingly astronomy is not just done by observing light, it's also done by observing gravitational waves and particles, neutrinos and high energy particles called cosmic rays. So there was a panel devoted to that. And then there were two panels that were a little different in kind. One was called the Enabling Foundations for Research and I'll explain what that did. And the other was this state of the profession and societal impacts, the SOP-C panel that we just talked about. Elliot, we've got a couple more questions here. Yep. So at some point we might need to let you make some progress here, but Stuart's wondering what it is that you mean by exciting science. You know, what's exciting to one person might be different than someone else? Is that based on what's theoretically possible or practical achievements? Right. So that's a great question.  What are areas that are the most ripe for progress? And so part of the goal of this kind of process is to think through different answers to that question of what the most exciting science is. And, you know, I think in practice, the answer to that question is not completely divorced from what is scientifically possible and what is technologically possible. So in many ways, I think the areas of science that are identified are things like what is dark matter? Where we know there's a really big question, it's actually been around for a while, but it's still a really pressing question that underlies a lot of our understanding of cosmology, the history of the universe itself. We'll talk a little bit later about searching for life on other planets, right? That's a question that we're really now only for the first time in scientific history able to address using, you know, clear, well-defined observational programs we're able to tackle that science questions. So those are some of the examples, but it's, you know, I think the truth is that there is something very much subjective about this. And that's why there's a lot of different people involved in the process because one is trying to take the pulse of the entire astronomical community in identifying in a fair way what many different people in the community find to be really exciting science questions. And I believe that you answered this question in your, the last answer, Carl said, is acceptance of proposed research based on completion of analysis of all prior data gathered data. And so you alluded to that as far as basing this on past missions or past research. Yeah, so I think very much the goal in identifying these priority science areas is to try to identify either questions where new technology is allowing us to address things in ways we couldn't before or where there have been new breakthroughs, either observational or theoretical, that have created new questions that we really didn't have 10 or 15 years ago. And those are the kinds of questions that sort of bubble to the forefront out of this kind of process. So it very much involves synthesizing what's been done and what is known and then looking forward. Okay. So I want to say a little bit about this enabling foundations. These two panels were new in this decadal survey. They had never been sort of separate prioritization processes in any decadal survey before, not just in astronomy, but in any area. And so one of the things I think that many of us were proud of is recognizing these enabling foundations and the state of the profession as things that were important to address on the same footing and with the same importance as what's the next big telescope that we should build. And so the way to think about the enabling foundations for research is sort of things that aren't telescopes, but that are really important for research. Things like what fraction of the federal government's funding goes to supporting people to do science, to actually analyze data from telescopes versus goes to building new telescopes. What's the right balance that we should strive for? How do we actually archive all the amazing amount of data that we have from the Hubble Space Telescope and that we'll be getting from the Webb Telescope and from the Vera Rubin Observatory? How do we archive that in the most useful way that the entire scientific community, any indeed any member of the public can access, right? The federal government through taxpayer's money is paying for these instruments and so the data should be publicly accessible to anybody, not just members of the astronomical community. And so those are some examples of these enabling foundations for research where there was a lot of thought into how to ensure that the most research can get done by having sort of the right backbone, the right research infrastructure in place to enable telescopes to do the most science. And then the state of the profession and societal impacts sort of the goal and the view of this panel is stated very nicely I think in this quote that was at the heart of the report written by this panel and that the steering committee very much took to heart and it's that the pursuit of science and the pursuit of scientific excellence is inseparable from the humans who animated, the people who do the science, the people who were involved in the scientific process. So we should not think of science as this sort of robotic enterprise that just yields amazing images, but it extrably has a very strong sociological component to it. It involves people, it involves people working within the particular confines of the society that we live in, and that very much shapes the scientific enterprise and thinking about it in that way is very important both for understanding where the scientific community is doing things well and understanding where the scientific community may not be doing things as well as it could. So there's another question here. Are projects selected not always to be done at a major university or institution? I think that's a great question and that's I think that's actually very much one that we talk a lot about and struggled with in the sense that we want the projects that are supported by federal resources, by government dollars, again taxpayer dollars, we want them to lead to science that benefits the entire scientific community, not just to be completely honest, not just people like me who are at Princeton University, which is an extraordinarily privileged and wealthy institution with a lot of access to resources that most universities don't have. And so I think that that has led to the prioritization of projects that have as part of their output data that can be widely used by the scientific community by people at any institution, be it a major research university like UC Berkeley or Princeton or be it a small liberal arts college that doesn't have PhDs, that primarily trains undergraduate students and where it's the undergraduate students who are involved in research. And so that a goal very much of some of the projects that are highlighted is to ensure that the entire scientific community benefits from the projects that we prioritize. So great question. Okay, so I'll just say that this panel on the state of the profession grappled with a lot of questions that show up not just in the scientific community but that our society as a whole is grappling with. It grappled with the fact that the astronomical community, the research community and astronomy, the demographics of that community are not at all representative of the Democrat demographics of the United States overall. And so what can be done to ensure better participation in particular by women and underrepresented minorities in the scientific enterprise? How can we strengthen programs that draw in a broader range of people into the scientific process? And so those are the kinds of questions that the society for that the panel on the state of the profession grappled with and tried to identify recommendations that could really improve the sort of health and vitality of the astronomical profession on those fronts. Another one that they dealt with that I wanted to highlight because I think it's something that the amateur astronomical community is also very concerned with is issues about light pollution, both light pollution that we're used to, street lights, things like that, and new sources of light pollution like Starlink, which are increasingly problematic both for professional astronomers and for amateur astronomers. And so how to mitigate the impacts of those was another area where there was a lot of focus from the state of the profession panel. And indeed, they and we as the primary steering committee, we met with representatives from SpaceX and other companies that are launching these satellites into space and tried to sort of engage them on minimizing their impact on both the professional and amateur astronomical communities. Okay, so I want to highlight the sort of science areas that were identified as being sort of capturing areas where we think there's going to be a lot of progress in the next 10 to 20 years. And those take the form of both broad science themes. And then within those broad science themes, somewhat more specific science questions, questions that really drove a lot of the specific project recommendations that we ended up highlighting. So those science themes were grouped into three broad areas. So there are all of these science panels that I emphasized here came up with actually they each came up with five different they came up with five different science questions and then the steering committee overall grouped those into these themes and then more specific questions within those themes. There's another question in the Q&A, was there is there was surveys done? Was there an opportunity for amateur astronomers to somehow participate? That's a great question and honestly, I should know the answer to that and I don't remember whether as part of the process there was outreach to the amateur astronomical community. I believe that there was but I would have to go double check exactly what form that took so I can do that afterwards and get back to you. But great question. Okay. So the science themes, one of which is a theme that we called cosmic ecosystems. And this really captures the science behind Carl Sagan's famous quote that we are all star stuff. This is this idea of the interconnected universe that stars produce the heavy elements necessary for life and they eject those heavy elements back out into space and indeed most of those heavy elements get ejected out of galaxies out into intergalactic space before they later flow back into galaxies form new generations of stars and planets and ultimately end up as the iron in our blood and the oxygen we breathe and the rare earth metals that make our technological civilization our phones and my MacBook Pro here actually work. And within that broader science theme, the area in which there has been the most progress in the last five or 10 years and one where we think there will be more in the coming decade is really understanding how galaxies grow by gathering up gas from their surroundings. Galaxies pull gas into them and that becomes the fuel for later generations of star formation and planet formation and the growth of galaxies. There's another question. Was any research designated to removing or cleaning space debris left over the past 80 years? That also was definitely a topic that was grappled with namely how to minimize the chance of collisions of satellites or collisions between debris created by satellites that have been their scientifically productive lives and other things. So this is a huge worry. I don't think there are any good solutions. I think this is an area where there's a lot of hand-wringing and a lot of concern but not one in which there's been a huge amount of progress partially because a lot of the problem increasingly is driven by the increasing use of space for commercial purposes. So that's driving a lot of the difficult problems in this area. Good question. Another one of the major science areas that we identified as being particularly exciting is a good example of science that really has only fully emerged in the last decade. This is the idea that I already alluded to, that astronomy is now done not just with light but it is now done by directly observing gravitational waves. That's what the gravitational wave view of the universe is. What the LIGO and Virgo telescopes opened up starting in 2015 through the present day and likewise we can now observe the universe in neutrinos and hynergy particles, not just in light. So those different ways of looking at the universe, new messengers have revealed new ways of doing astronomy, new types of astronomy really, and in so doing they're also revealing new physics, right, involved in the collision of two black holes that LIGO has detected. That's allowing us to test Einstein's theory of gravity in ways we never knew possible before. There's another question, how does dark matter become involved in the process of star formation? That ties into this cosmic ecosystems theme. Dark matter is not directly involved in the process of star formation. By the time you're forming stars, dark matter, the gravity of dark matter is actually not that important, but dark matter is critical for the process of galaxy formation. The gravity of dark matter on the scale of a galaxy as a whole dominates over the gravity of normal matter, and so the gravity of dark matter dominates how gas gets pulled into galaxies, which sort of sets the stage for where stars form, where planets form in the universe. Overall, the dark matter creates a kind of backbone that sets where gas accumulates to subsequently turn into stars and planets, but once you're forming a star in that region of space where a new star is forming, the gravity of the dark matter is no longer that important. So good question. And then the last science area that we highlighted was sort of the idea of really exploiting the remarkable advances in understanding and indeed detecting planets around other stars to really understand those other planetary systems, both how they're different from our own solar system, how they're similar to our own solar system, different or similar as the case may be. So that's sort of the idea of understanding other planetary systems in context, both relative to each other, because we now know of many thousands of planets around other stars, both so both in context relative to each other and also relative to the solar system, which is the planetary system that we of course have the most detailed knowledge of. And within that broader science theme, the scientific question that is the most likely to see transformative progress, which will impact not just the astronomical community, but I would say will really impact the entire world in terms of changing how humanity perceives our place in the universe is this search for planets like the earth in the sense of being potentially habitable. And so one can use that phrase potentially habitable in many different ways. The one that's the easiest to define would be capable of having liquid water on its surface. There is no guarantee at all that that's the only definition of the habitable planet, but it's the easiest one to start with because it's grounded in what we know about the earth and the solar system. And so that drives a lot of the interest in the astronomical community is just trying to find other planets that could have liquid water on those surface. So rocky surfaces that might have oceans. So going from the science areas to actually identifying projects, of course, is very difficult. There's a lot of factors that have to be balanced. I would say chief among those those factors that have to be balanced is sort of a balance between small, medium and large projects. You don't want to put all your eggs in projects that will take 20 years. That's not good for developing a vibrant scientific community. You want a scientific community that has lots of small projects, which are going to get results a year from now, while at the same time trying to do the super ambitious things like build the James Webb Space Telescope. And so that small, medium and large exists both in the space of dollars, in the space literally of the diameter of the telescope, and also in terms of time scales near term versus longer term. There's a lot of other things that we had to balance in thinking about how to go from science to projects. I've listed a few others here that I'm happy to answer questions about if people have them. So this shows kind of a mapping from the science areas that I emphasize to you, to some of the specific projects that were prioritized. So those projects that were prioritized include a new large infrared optical and UV telescope in space, new extremely large telescopes, ELTs as they're called on the ground, a next generation version of the very large array, the radio array that has been used to do so much amazing science in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum, through to other things like continuing to develop the technology to detect gravitational waves. There's a question, can planets around Red Dwarf stars harbor life as we know them? And indeed, that's one of the questions that drove the recommendation as I'll mention in a second of building a new generation of very large telescopes, these ELTs on the ground, is specifically to try to answer that very science question. So I think it's fair to say that at the end of this multi-year process involving hundreds of hundreds of people distilling many exciting science areas down to a set of projects to be prioritized, there was really one question that at the end of the day most strongly influenced the recommendations that we made. And that is this idea of trying to continue the remarkable progress in the study of planets around other stars and in particular to push that search for planets around other stars into the realm of trying to answer through direct observations of planets around other stars, whether there are planets that might have liquid water on their surface, whether there are planets that might have oxygen atmospheres, that might have evidence of photosynthesis, and thus that might have evidence for the possibility of life similar to that that developed here on it. And the push to try to answer that question really drove the most ambitious, most difficult in terms of engineering, timescale, and cost of the projects that we recommended. So just to set the stage for this, we've basically learned over the last 20 years that all stars to first approximation host planets, indeed on average, each star like the sun probably hosts several planets, just like our own solar system does. But a smaller fraction of planets appear to host earth-like planets, and by that I mean rocky planets, so planets that have not just gaseous like Jupiter but that are rocky and that have surface temperatures that might be compatible with having liquid water. And the major technique that we prioritized as part of the 2020 Decadal Survey was the idea of trying to directly see planets around other stars. And the way to do that is shown in this animation. So you develop techniques where you actually block the light of the star, sort of like what happens during an eclipse of the sun by the moon. And by blocking the light of the star, you're able to see the very faint planet that is otherwise hidden by the incredibly bright source of light that is the host star in that system. And the goal here is to directly see the light from the planet and to actually take a spectrum to be able to characterize the composition of the atmosphere of planets around other stars, to look at whether or not those planets have water, whether or not they have oxygen in their atmosphere is whether or not they have ozone, whether they might have photosynthesis, questions like that. We want to be able to answer those questions directly using astronomical observations of planets around other stars. This technique is done using a coronagraph, so which is sort of an engineered version of an eclipse where you build into the telescope a way of blocking the light of the star and seeing the very faint planets that are orbiting around the star. And to do that, we need to build larger telescopes than we have today, both on the ground and in space. And the need for larger telescopes is really driven by three different factors. We need big telescopes because planets like the Earth in the sense of rocky and temperate may be rare. And so we need to look at a lot of stars to have a chance of finding them. So that drives towards bigger telescopes that can survey more stars. The other two reasons that we need bigger telescopes is that blocking the light of the host star is difficult. That requires high angular resolution, which means large diameter telescopes. And lastly, the planets are very faint relative to the star, and so you need really big diameter telescopes to gather enough light to directly see the planets. And so the primary recommendation on the ground that we made is to build a new generation of telescopes that are sort of like the big 10 meter diameter telescopes that exist today, but instead have diameters of 20 or 30 meters. So these are telescopes that have a total diameter of something of order 30 meters or so. There are two such projects led by U.S. consortia, U.S. groups. One is called the Giant Magellan Telescope and one is called the 30 meter telescope. And our recommendation was to try to pursue building both of those telescopes, but at a minimum to definitely try to do one. And for the U.S. federal government to invest enough resources to ensure that at least one of those large ground-based telescopes will come to fruition. And indeed, these ground-based telescopes are the ones that can directly answer the question that was asked a minute ago, which is, can we see planets that might have Earth-like temperatures orbiting cool red dwarf stars, M stars? And that can be done from the ground. It doesn't require growing to space, but it does require building bigger telescopes than what we have today. And so that's part of what we recommended. Another major ground-based telescope that we recommended is to start technology development for building a successor to the very large array. And the goal of that is actually to directly see planets as they form. So this is sort of theoretical, theoretical example of what one might see. This is what one can currently see using the Alma array that's in the Atacama Desert in Chile. And this is what the next generation, very large array, would see. Each of these rings here that you see in this image is actually traced out by a planet in this hypothetical planetary system. So with a new radio array on the ground, one would actually be able to see planets like the Earth in the act of forming and really understand the planet formation process itself, which is a very difficult process. In space, the primary recommendation or highest priority recommendation is actually to build what is basically a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. So you may know that the James Webb Space Telescope is not going to observe like Hubble at optical or UV wavelengths, but rather it observes in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum to detect light from very, very distant redshifted objects. But to detect Earth-like planets around sun-like stars, what we need is basically a much larger version of Hubble in space. So something like a seven or eight meter diameter telescope that observes at the wavelengths that Hubble observes at, rather than at the infrared wavelengths that JWST observes at. And so that indeed is our primary recommendation because that will advance this goal of really understanding and trying to directly detect planets that potentially could be habitable. Okay, so I'll simply end by saying that astronomy has succeeded in many ways over the last decade because we have observed the sky not just at wavelengths that our eyes can see, optical wavelengths, but we've actually observed in the entire part, the entire electromagnetic spectrum from the radio all the way through to the x-rays and gamma rays. And indeed, part of the success of astronomy in unraveling the workings of the universe has been the realization that different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum give us very different information about the objects that we look at. These are three images of the exact same object in the sky, a cluster of galaxies, visible x-ray and radio, and those images tell us very, very different things. And so our recommendation is to NASA, to NASA, is that at the same time as it prioritizes building a new infrared optical UV follow-on to the Hubble Space Telescope, a larger version of Hubble, it has to at the same time start the technology development for building new infrared telescopes and new x-ray telescopes in space. And that has to be done now because it takes decades for the technology to develop to the point where one can actually do a mission, and we need to simultaneously advance the technology for all of these different missions so that in 20 or so years, we won't just be looking at the universe in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but we're able to have this full multi-wavelength view of the night sky. Okay, so I'll end there. There's lots of other things that we prioritized, but I'll end there in the interest of time and say, I hope I've given you a feel for, first of all, why the scientific community does this process of prioritization, the decadal survey process, how we go about doing it, and what some of the specific recommendations, both scientifically and technologically, in terms of future telescopes, that the most recent astronomy decadal survey actually prioritized. So I'd be happy to answer any additional questions that you have now. Yeah, we've got a couple there in the Q&A, and the one thing that I might mention with thinking about the high-energy telescopes is our speaker next month is someone on the New Star team, which has been doing X-ray astronomy for 10 years. So thinking ahead to something a better instrument with greater, much more capable than the existing ones, we've learned so much, and yet there's so much that we still have yet to Yeah, that's exactly right. So that New Star observes high-energy X-rays and has really transformed our understanding of black holes and neutron stars. And so that's a great example where, in addition to building this sort of successor to Hubble, one wants at the same time to be pushing forward the technology to develop better X-ray telescopes, things like New Star, things like the Chandra X-ray observatory. There's a question in the Q&A about, do we understand how we can detect black holes that aren't in a galaxy but are roaming out there in space? The answer is we do know one way of detecting sort of free-floating black holes, and that's through the process of gravitational lensing.  And that process of gravitational lensing is our best hope for directly seeing black holes that sort of don't have any gas falling into them that aren't at the center of the galaxy. And there, in fact, just earlier this year, the most compelling example for a black hole discovered using this technique of gravitational lensing was announced through observations by the Hubble Space Telescope. So that's our best bet for doing that. There's a couple other questions in the Q&A that I can address. Is a Dyson Sphere good signature for intelligent life? So there's this idea for those who don't know, the Dyson Sphere is the idea that a future very, very future, very technologically advanced civilization might evolve to the point where it builds basically a sphere around its host star to capture all of the energy produced by a star and harness all of that sunlight, basically for solar power, to power the functioning of the technologically advanced civilization. And so there have in fact been searches using infrared observations for, so the idea is that if you had a sphere made of metal around the sun at the distance of the earth, that would be a bright infrared source in the night sky. And so there have been searches for bright infrared sources that would represent Dyson Spheres. There haven't been any detections. You definitely would have heard of it had there been a detection of that. There hasn't been one. And of course, it's a huge outstanding question whether any technological civilization, can it could actually get to the point where it could build something like that? We're incredibly far from being able to do that today. And in my pessimistic moments, it's not at all obvious to me that we will reach the point where our technology will enable us to do that before bad things have happened on earth. And then the last question in the Q&A is the inclusion of quantum physics becoming becoming part of present astronomy research. There are a couple of different answers to that question. So all I mean, there is a sense in which quantum physics is part of everything we do in astronomy, right? Every time we observe atoms and the spectral lines from atoms were using quantum physics to understand atomic structure and what stars and galaxies are made of. I think you probably are getting at a version of the question which is, does our understanding of quantum gravity, so the theory that would unify quantum mechanics and gravity, is that becoming a part of astronomy research? And indeed the answer to that is yes, that the attempts to unify the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity in a quantum theory of gravity, we do not have such a theory today, but there's a lot of active research trying to develop such a theory. And that is really at the forefront of our understanding of cosmology as a whole, sort of the evolution of the universe writ large, and our understanding of things like the acceleration and the expansion history of the universe ties into that idea of a quantum theory of gravity. And there are also ideas that observations of black holes might be able to detest, to test, not to test, to test quantum theories of gravity. So those are senses in which we're trying to use astronomical observations to actually test sort of basic laws of physics, in this case, about the union of quantum mechanics and gravity. So great question. Any other question? I think that the one item that did show up in the chat, which I thought was interesting, something that I had wondered about too is that it was suggested or asked, what about putting a liquid mirror telescope out in space? And there would be some engineering things. But then I also pondered whether or not if you could do that, would that be a self correcting one? And so you could avoid the, it would be self healing if you had some micro meteorites pass through it. Yeah. So there has actually been a lot of research into that also into the idea of putting one on the moon. And part of the interest in that is to piggyback on human exploration of space. So there's interest in going back to the moon. And so one wants to use the, all of the engineering effort in going to the moon to push science forward as well. And one way to do that would be to build a telescope on the moon. Radio telescopes on the moon would be very interesting, but another idea has actually been to have a liquid mirror telescope. So I honestly don't know all that much about it, but I do know that that's an area in which there's quite a bit of interest and research. The other one is actually there are interesting ideas for inflatable dishes. So if you're observing at radio wavelengths, then your reflecting surface doesn't have to be an amazing mirror in the sense that it has to be if you're observing at optical wavelengths. The mirror only has to be as good as the kind of wavelength of light that you're observing at. So at radio wavelengths or far infrared wavelengths, you could actually get away with something that's sort of like an inflatable balloon making up the dish. And so there are interesting ideas for that from an engineering standpoint of actually trying to make that work. So I know there's a lot of research going on into that as well. So many things in it. It's so much creativity and imagination that goes into it. And I think that that's where that human element that comes in that you were mentioning that they're really emphasizing and bring that to bear. So that's all for tonight. Thank you so much, Elliott, for joining us this evening and thank you everyone for tuning in. You can find this webinar along with many others on the Night Sky Network website in the Outreach Resources section. Each webinar's page also features additional resources and activities. This will be posted on the website within the next few days. Also join us for our next webinar on Wednesday, July 20th when Dr. Brian Greffenstetta from Caltech will bring us up to date on New Star, a space-based X-ray telescope now in its 10th year of operation, which I don't know, maybe it was in a decadal survey 20 years ago. I bet it was. Also join us on the evening of Wednesday, July 13th for another in our series of social events where you, the members of the Night Sky Network, share your ideas and good works. This one will be specifically on International Observe the Moon Night and we will have some guests as Dave mentioned earlier. So keep looking up and we will see you next month. Thanks everyone. Thanks for the great questions. Well, thank you so much for hanging in there longer than after seven o'clock. I know it's after 10 o'clock for you. No, my pleasure was fun. It's always fun to do these things. I enjoy it. Yeah, people had lots of lots of good questions. Yeah, no, I'm very happy