jwstmorescience

What science capability of JWST should be emphasized more? Are we capturing all possible sectors of the astronomical community? What more could we do?

Ancilliary data. There will not be UV-visible and X-ray facilities overlapping with JWST. It is important to get these data while we can. This is a major issue touched upon by several people at the Frontier's conference.

Deep fields. We have few deep fields. Is that enough? We should get ready to observe several more for cosmic variance reasons and to build decent samples.

Scientifically risky proposals. The length of the mission will make it hard to exploit the full envelope of capabilities unless one encourages from the very beginning scientifically risky, yet innovative ideas. The regular TAC process may be unable to handle this type of proposal unless some time is set aside for it.

Parallels. Parallel observations (use of more than one instrument simultaneously) have been very fruitful for Hubble and we must make sure that we have science parallels for JWST.

Gas into stars. We need to understand the physics of the gas to stars conversion locally if we want to understand star formation at high redshift.

Snapshots. Snaps have proven very successful for Hubble and we should plan to have them for JWST.

Phase II comment period. It is important to have a comment period for phase II proposals, especially if large. The community will have the chance to comment on the implementation and those comments should be reviewed. Some of the comments may need to be binding for the PI if the phase II overlooked some important aspects of the science.

Planets and planetary atmospheres. This is effectively a new mode of observations and we must make sure we can support it.

Active and quiescent supermassive black holes (SMBHs) both locally and at high-z.