1) Neutral: This proposal is to deliver a concept study to determine the feasibility of high astrometric precision in Antarctica. The science case appears to be strong, but it's not obvious how this will advance knowledge in AO. 2) Neutral: The project builds upon previous experience with building AO systems. What is new is that they want to do it at the South Pole. 3) Strength: A project plan is in place with a work break structure and identified milestones. 4) Strength: The PI has a strong track-record in developing AO systems. What his group lacks is specialized expertise in developing these systems for cold-weather environments like Antarctica. 5) Strength: The PI does have adequate resources as well as science and technical teams in place.

In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.

1) Strength: The PI has a strong track-record with teaching and training. Their plan accommodates student involvement. 2) Strength: The PI has a strong track-record in involving under-represented groups. Specifically with minority undergraduate research fellowships. 3) Weakness: This proposal is to deliver a concept study. As such it will not enhance infrastructure for research and education. 4) Strength: Their is a plan in place to make all results of the concept study available to the broader community.

Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable

Summary Statement

Overall a strong proposal with a well thought out scientific argument. The PI has a strong track-record of success and there is no reason to believe that wouldn't be the case here. The downside, if it can be called that, is that it is a feasibility study to determine how best to implement their project at the South Pole. It would require additional funding to go from the feasibility study to production.