AST Update

Astronomy and AstrophysicsAstronomy and Astrophysics

Advisory CommitteeAdvisory Committee

10 May 200710 May 2007

Topics

FY2007 Budget Situation FY2007 Budget Situation

FY2008 RequestFY2008 Request

FY2009 Budget planningFY2009 Budget planning

Senior Review Status and Town MeetingsSenior Review Status and Town Meetings Separate discussion this afternoonSeparate discussion this afternoon

Next Decadal Survey planningNext Decadal Survey planning Interagency perspectives?Interagency perspectives?

Request for AST $215.11M (FY2006 + 7.7% or $15.5M)

•NSF request shaped by American Competitiveness Initiative

•Facilities base operations budgets held level pending outcome of senior review

• Increases for:

- GSMT ($5M, up $3M)

- TSIP ($4M, up $2M)

- AODP ($1.5M, restored)

- Physics of the Universe activities enhanced

- Elementary Particle Physics - dark energy, dark matter studies (with Physics Division)

- Research grants programs up overall

- Gemini future instrumentation

FY2007 Budget Request/Current Plan

Current FY2007 Budget Situation Current Plan approved by CongressCurrent Plan approved by Congress

Now allocated at FY2007 Request levels.Now allocated at FY2007 Request levels.

MREFC funded at FY2006 levels, but ALMA MREFC funded at FY2006 levels, but ALMA increase of ~$16M accommodated in FY2007 by increase of ~$16M accommodated in FY2007 by reducing funding for new starts (OOI, NEON)reducing funding for new starts (OOI, NEON)

Proposal submission up ~10% in AAGProposal submission up ~10% in AAG Success rates likely to be ~20% (were 24% in Success rates likely to be ~20% (were 24% in

FY06 from 35% in FY03)FY06 from 35% in FY03)

FY 2008 MPS Focus Areas• Physical sciences at the nanoscalePhysical sciences at the nanoscale

• Science beyond “Moore’s Law” Science beyond “Moore’s Law”

• Physics of the universePhysics of the universe

• Complex systemsComplex systems

• Fundamental mathematical and statistical scienceFundamental mathematical and statistical science

• SustainabilitySustainability

• Cyber-enabled Discovery and InnovationCyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation

MPS Budgets by Division

FY 2005 Actuals

FY 2006 Actuals

Change from

05 to 06FY 2007 Request

Change from

06 to 07FY 2008 Request

Change from

07 to 08AST 195.11 $199.75 2.4% $215.11 7.7% $232.97 8.3%CHE 179.26 180.70 0.8% 191.10 5.8% 210.54 10.2%DMR 240.09 242.59 1.0% 257.45 6.1% 282.59 9.8%DMS 200.24 199.52 -0.4% 205.74 3.1% 223.47 8.6%PHY 224.86 234.15 4.1% 248.50 6.1% 269.06 8.3%OMA 29.80 29.9 0.3% 32.40 8.4% 34.37 6.1%Total, MPS 1,069.36 1,086.61 1.6% 1,150.30 5.9% 1253.00 8.9%

R&RA 4234.82 4449.25 5.1% 4,765.95 7.1% 5,131.69 7.7%

NSF 5480.78 5645.79 3.0% 6,020.21 6.6% 6429.00 6.8%

Facilities Amount Percent

Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) $14.62 $14.71 $14.71 - -

GEMINI Observatory 18.18 20.00 20.50 0.50 2.5%

IceCube - - 1.50 1.50 N/A

Large Hadron Collider (LHC) 13.36 18.00 18.00 - -

Laser Interferometer Gravit. Wave Obs. (LIGO) 31.68 33.00 28.20 -4.80 -14.5%

NCSL (MSU Cyclotron) 17.34 17.60 19.50 1.90 10.8%

Nanofabrication (NNUN/NNIN) 2.77 2.80 2.80 - -

Nat'l High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) 25.74 26.50 29.00 2.50 9.4%

Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP) 0.99 - - - N/A

Nat'l Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) 10.46 10.46 10.45 -0.01 -0.1%

Nat'l Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 1.03 1.12 1.12 - -

Nat'l Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) 36.91 40.05 43.18 3.13 7.8%

Nat'l Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) 50.74 50.74 52.74 2.00 3.9%

Other MPS Facilities 12.31 12.47 14.97 2.50 20.0%

Total, MPS $236.13 $247.45 $256.67 $9.22 3.7%

Totals may not add due to rounding.

FY 2006 Actual

FY 2007 Request

FY 2008 Request

Change overFY 2007 Request

MPS Facilities in Operation

1The NOAO total includes funding for instrumentation programs that build public-private partnerships. In FY 2008, the Telescope System Instrumentation Program is funded at $5 million. The Adaptive Optics Development Program is funded at $1.5 million, level with FY 2007 request, but moves into the disciplinary instrumentation program and so no longer appears in the NOAO budget in FY 2008. The base NOAO/NSO program funding increases by $3.63 million over the FY 2007 request .

Request for AST $232.97M (FY2007 + 8.3% or $17.9M)

• Facilities base operations budgets begin to show impact of Senior Review recommendations

• NOAO + $2.3M for reinvestment

• NSO + $1.3M for ATST

• NRAO + $2M for ALMA ops

• NAIC base reduction, hidden by termination costs and necessary maintenance

• Increases for:

- TSIP ($5M, up $1M)

- Research, instrumentation grants programs

- New program of instrumentation fellowships

-Partnerships in Astronomy and Astrophysics Research and Education (PAAR, NSF 07-561)

• GSMT continues at FY07 level

FY2008 Budget Request for AST

MREFC RequestFY 2006

ActualFY 2007 Request

FY 2008 Request

FY 2009 Estimate

FY 2010 Estimate

FY 2011 Estimate

FY 2012 Estimate

FY 2013 Estimate

Ongoing Projects

ARRV1 56.00 42.00 25.00 -

ALMA2 48.66 64.27 102.07 74.75 42.76 21.44 3.00 -DOJ Judgment 3.00 - EarthScope 49.62 27.40 - IceCube 56.44 28.65 22.38 11.33 0.95 -

NEON3 4.00 8.00 20.00 30.00 26.00 12.00 -

OOI4

5.12 30.99 80.00 90.00 95.00 30.00 -SODV 66.03 42.88 -

SPSM5 13.07 9.13 6.55 - New Starts

AdvLIGO6- 32.75 51.43 46.30 15.21 23.73 15.50

MREFC Account Total $233.81 $240.45 $244.74 $262.51 $210.01 $157.65 $68.73 $15.50

MREFC Account Funding(Dollars in Millions)

Totals may not add due to rounding.1The recent baseline analysis for ARRV noted the potential for a cost increase of $25.0 million (included in FY 2009).

2ALMA is increased by $16.38 million in FY 2007 following a rebaselining completed in FY 2006. Figures for FY 2008 and beyond also

reflect the new baseline.3NEON is reduced in FY 2007 to partially cover ALMA's increase. NEON's revised baseline is expected in May 2007 following a

Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The amount in FY 2012 reflects the reduced funding in FY 2007 and FY 2008. 4OOI is reduced by $8.38 million in FY 2007 to cover the remainder of ALMA's increase. OOI plans to conduct a PDR in December

2007, at which time firmer cost estimates will be available. 5The SPSM cost to complete was updated in August 2006. The revised work plan, schedule and estimate were reviewed in detail by an

external panel in September 2006 and the estimate for FY 2008 reflects the cost to complete the remaining scope of the project in accordance with the revised schedule.6The AdvLIGO estimate reflects the formal project baseline reviewed by the external panel convened by NSF in June 2006.

MPS Budgets by Division

MPS Subactivity Funding(Dollars in Millions)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

DMR PHY CHE AST DMS OMA

AAG Program Evolution FY1996-2006

AAG Program Evolution FY1995-2007

FY2009 Budget planningTopics central to AST

• ACI focus areas- research “Investment in cutting-edge basic research

whose quality is bolstered by merit review and that focuses on fundamental discoveries to produce valuable and marketable

technologies, processes, and techniques” - fellows “Institutions of higher education that

provide American students access to world-class education and research opportunities in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology.”

- research infrastructure “Investment in the tools of science—facilities and instruments that enable discovery and development—particularly unique, expensive, or large-scale tools

beyond the means of a single organization”

•Cyber-related activities• Transformational research

Decadal Survey Planning How to get input from the community Committee/panel structure – should it be technique or science-based? Membership – should those who are not astronomers be included?

International representation? Structure of the recommendations – prioritization across categories, or just

within, e.g. space – ground, major – moderate – small, etc What boundaries are placed on the scientific scope of the survey – e.g. solar,

particle astrophysics How to make our survey stand out from the crowd How to get realistic estimates of costs (and uncertainties in costs) of projects How to address previously recommended projects that have not been

completed How to make the process flexible and responsive to changes in mid-decade How to incorporate consideration of realistic budgetary outlook International Coordination Consideration of Existing Infrastructure - process of ‘Senior Review’

Community Input is Essential

Email input astsenior-review@nsf.gov

Decade Survey planning input Astro2010@nas.edu

Senior Review Status

AST has begun implementation planAST has begun implementation plan Consult facilities managersConsult facilities managers Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,…Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,…

Taking implementation plan to communityTaking implementation plan to community Town meeting series started in Seattle at AASTown meeting series started in Seattle at AAS Ann Arbor, Washington, DC, Santa Cruz, Princeton, Atlanta, Tucson Ann Arbor, Washington, DC, Santa Cruz, Princeton, Atlanta, Tucson

Extensive community consultationExtensive community consultation Clarify recommendations; listen to concerns; understand impactsClarify recommendations; listen to concerns; understand impacts Exert the NSF leadership that the Senior Review urgedExert the NSF leadership that the Senior Review urged Building new relationship with the communityBuilding new relationship with the community Finding wide acceptance of review and strong support for carrying it out Finding wide acceptance of review and strong support for carrying it out

– direct result of an open, consultative process– direct result of an open, consultative process

Welcome constructive comments to email address: Welcome constructive comments to email address: astsenior-review@nsf.govastsenior-review@nsf.gov

Developing an NSF Response and Implementation Plan

AST is working closely with facilities to understand implications of recommendations as we consider possible implementation

NSF is active in encouraging and engaging in discussion with other possible partners in facility operations, including international partners and other funding agencies.

NASA for Arecibo, VLBA, GONG++ Puerto Rico International agency meetings convened by AST

AST is working with the community and NOAO to determine where re-investment in existing OIR facilities should occur and in the development of an integrated and coordinated “System”

Upcoming workshops

Developing an NSF Response and Implementation Plan

AST is undertaking detailed cost reviews of each observatory necessary to understand where cost reductions can be made

Understand operational costs, appropriate staffing levels Consider other operational and business models Hope to complete within next 6 to 8 months, perhaps seeking outside

advice

Explore costs and legal issues associated with recommendations e.g. environmental, deconstruction, divestiture, termination costs – engaging outside studies over the next year

Many changes will take several years to implement – Budget implications in FY2009

Now also beginning the forward look - What can we accomplish as funds become available?

Cost Reviews We have a 50 year tradition of operations that we must We have a 50 year tradition of operations that we must

examine, both for now and for future facilitiesexamine, both for now and for future facilities Can current level of service be delivered for less?Can current level of service be delivered for less?

Some opinions based on university-scale opsSome opinions based on university-scale ops Hidden subsidies, etc.Hidden subsidies, etc.

We all must understand the costs thoroughlyWe all must understand the costs thoroughly NSF, facilities, and community must look at different service NSF, facilities, and community must look at different service

modelsmodels Changes similar to those at NAIC may be necessary at all Changes similar to those at NAIC may be necessary at all

AST facilitiesAST facilities NSF will support efforts towards implementation of NSF will support efforts towards implementation of

recommendations by managing organizations.recommendations by managing organizations.

Decadal Survey Planning How to get input from the community Committee/panel structure – should it be technique or science-based? Membership – should those who are not astronomers be included?

International representation? Structure of the recommendations – prioritization across categories, or just

within, e.g. space – ground, major – moderate – small, etc What boundaries are placed on the scientific scope of the survey – e.g. solar,

particle astrophysics How to make our survey stand out from the crowd How to get realistic estimates of costs (and uncertainties in costs) of projects How to address previously recommended projects that have not been

completed How to make the process flexible and responsive to changes in mid-decade How to incorporate consideration of realistic budgetary outlook International Coordination Consideration of Existing Infrastructure - process of ‘Senior Review’

Community Input is Essential

Email input astsenior-review@nsf.gov

Decade Survey planning input Astro2010@nas.edu