FY 2008 Proposed Budget ($2.776 Trillion OL)R&D = 13% of discretionary spending

Non-Def.16%

Other Mandatory

11.5%

Social Security

20.9%

Net Interest

8.5%Defense

17.7%

Defense R&D2.8%

Medicare13.3%Medicaid

7.3%

Non-Def. R&D2%

Mandatory Spending

Discretionary Spending

Total R&D = $139B $79B DoD+DHS $60B Non-Security

Fraction of R&D in FY2007 Approps. Bills

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Appropriations Committee

R&D Non-R&D

$419B $49B $32B $32B $18B $50B $30B $19B $26B $144B $23B $48B

Some Trends for Large Scientific Projects/Facilities

More are recommended than could be funded under the most optimistic budget scenarios (by factors of 2-4).

Non-traditional fields are also proposing large facilities and are real competition for resources.

Chronic tension between new and existing facilities and between facilities and program research budgets.

Projects are ever more technically complex and challenging• Premium on project management• Cost overruns erode credibility of the agency, program, PIs to deliver.

Budgets are tight and the budget process is increasingly political• Congress does not have a good track record in passing approps bills on time – CRs and

Omnibus can have significant impacts. • Careful matching between project design/scope and scientific motivations (i.e. will not

build a Cadillac when a Chevy will do.)

Increasing numbers of interagency, international projects• Hard Lessons Learned from GLAST, RSVP• Plethora of lessons learned from international projects

The path for public-private partnerships is not well defined

Strong Agency/Program Support, Strong Project Socialization

Influences Change as Projects Evolve

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Infl

ue

nc

e (

Ris

k)

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

To

tal

Ac

cru

ed

Co

st

($M

)

OperationsConstructionPreliminary

DesignProject Definition

Total CostsINFLUENCE (Risk)

Agency Ops PolicyProject Mgmt

Program Budget

Project MgmtBudget Process

Scientific ValueProject Costs

Budget Process

S&T Policy Sciecntific MeritTechnical Risks

Executive Branch• White House

- OMB will not change at the staff level – PADs and higher- OSTP could be significantly re-directed. Complete change of staff- Vice President and the Domestic Policy Council are also key

positions.• Agencies

- NSF little impact. NASA and DOE certain to be affected- NASA and DOE Agency Leadership for science are crucial

- NASA: US Space Policy re-visit?- DOE: ACI, Energy R&D overshadow discovery-oriented science?

• Engagement strategy for the election:- Follow the campaigns, who is advising on science? - Have an agenda for transition: once the election is over, the facility

Directors should band together to provide their input qualities for new leadership at the Agency

- Who are potential candidates for leadership positions at the agency?

Legislative Branch- ALL politics are local – work with research VPs/community to educate

newly elected officials about budget impacts within NASA or DOE on research at institutions in their home district

- Hill Staff will play musical chairs

2008 Election Opportunity: How Should You Prepare?

Comments: • Sets priorities - still too many projects - Is this a good or a bad thing?

• Provides an estimate of cost – Actual cost is usually higher

• No technical readiness discussion - Provide a sense of ordering

• Does not say anything about existing facilities

Discussion: • Would evaluation of TRL help with needed

phasing information?

• Only cost projects that are ready for a start within the next decade?

• For each project, provide some recommendation regarding needed investments (tech, PED, start)?

• Revisit readiness about mid-way?

The Decadal Survey