AST Update

1. AST Update Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee 10 May 2007

2. Topics • FY2007 Budget Situation • FY2008 Request • FY2009 Budget planning • Senior Review Status and Town Meetings • Separate discussion this afternoon • Next Decadal Survey planning • Interagency perspectives?

3. FY2007 Budget Request/Current Plan • 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

4. Current FY2007 Budget Situation • Current Plan approved by Congress • Now allocated at FY2007 Request levels. • MREFC funded at FY2006 levels, but ALMA increase of ~$16M accommodated in FY2007 by reducing funding for new starts (OOI, NEON) • Proposal submission up ~10% in AAG • Success rates likely to be ~20% (were 24% in FY06 from 35% in FY03)

5. FY 2008 MPS Focus Areas • Physical sciences at the nanoscale • Science beyond “Moore’s Law” • Physics of the universe • Complex systems • Fundamental mathematical and statistical science • Sustainability • Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation

6. MPS Budgets by Division

7. 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 .

8. FY2008 Budget Request for AST • 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

9. MREFC Request

10. MPS Budgets by Division

11. AAG Program Evolution FY1996-2006

12. AAG Program Evolution FY1995-2007

13. FY2009 Budget planning • Topics 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

14. 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’

15. Community Input is Essential • Email inputastsenior-review@nsf.gov • Decade Survey planning input Astro2010@nas.edu

16. Senior Review Status • AST has begun implementation plan • Consult facilities managers • Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,… • Taking implementation plan to community • Town meeting series started in Seattle at AAS • Ann Arbor, Washington, DC, Santa Cruz, Princeton, Atlanta, Tucson • Extensive community consultation • Clarify recommendations; listen to concerns; understand impacts • Exert the NSF leadership that the Senior Review urged • Building new relationship with the community • Finding wide acceptance of review and strong support for carrying it out – direct result of an open, consultative process • Welcome constructive comments to email address: astsenior-review@nsf.gov

17. 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

18. 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?

19. Cost Reviews • We have a 50 year tradition of operations that we must examine, both for now and for future facilities • Can current level of service be delivered for less? • Some opinions based on university-scale ops • Hidden subsidies, etc. • We all must understand the costs thoroughly • NSF, facilities, and community must look at different service models • Changes similar to those at NAIC may be necessary at all AST facilities • NSF will support efforts towards implementation of recommendations by managing organizations.

20. 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’

21. Community Input is Essential • Email inputastsenior-review@nsf.gov • Decade Survey planning input Astro2010@nas.edu