nsf division of astronomical sciences

NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences

AAAC

October 15-16, 2009

Craig Foltz

Summary

• AST Budget Overview– Retrospective look– FY 2009 & ARRA– Looking forward– Status of Senior Review implementation

• Changes in AST

• Recent Activities and Actions

MPS Budget trends

MPS Division Budgets FY2000-2010

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

Fiscal Year

$M

ASTCHEDMRDMSPHYOMA

MPS budget trends (cont.)Relative Budget Growth in MPS - FY 2000-2010

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

Fiscal Year

ASTCHEDMRDMSPHYMPSNSF R&RA

AST Budget trends AST Budget FY2000-2010

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

FIscal Year

$M

Facilities Research & Education Instrument & Tech dev 7% growth

10 year doubling

FY 2009 Budget Plan & FY 2010 Budget Request

FY2009 spending(including American Reinvestment and

Recovery Act, ARRA)

ARRA Funding• As shown, roughly 2/3 for grants and 1/3 for overdue facility

infrastructure improvements and preconstruction activities.• Quite strong restrictions; some suggested spending not

permitted; funds bring additional reporting requirements.• Success rate in research grants program (AAG) rose from last

year’s 21% to a healthy 36%.• Risk exaggerated: even if all awards were 3 years (they weren’t)

and all of them came back in exactly 3 years (which they won’t), only a 15% increase, which we have seen and handled before.

• Yes, the funding rate will not be this high in future.• Increases for CAREER (low success rate anyway) and Graduate

Research Fellowships.• Infrastructure improvements long overdue but the problem

persists.

FY 2010 Budget Request

AST Total: $250.8 M (increase of 10% over FY 2009)

• Facilities: $141 M (56%)– Gemini - $19.1 M– NAIC - $8.4 M– NOAO - $27.5 M– NSO - $9.1 M– NRAO - $67.1 M – UROs - $10 M

• Research and Education Grants: $110 M total (44%)– Roughly $45M for AAG; $37 M for instrumentation; – $25 M for special programs (AAPF, CAREER, REU,

Cyberinfrastructure, NSF-wide, etc)

Budget Projections?

Administration, congressional support for NSF budget doubling over 10 years.

How will AST fare in this growth? Administration priorities not well aligned with AST:

– “Green” energy– Climate change– Short term economic recovery

But historically AST has tracked NSF R&RA quite well

AST Budget trends AST Budget FY2000-2010

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

FY2000

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

Fiscal Year

$M

Facilities Research & Education Instrument & Tech dev 7% growth + projection

NSF projection

Status of Senior Review Recommendations

• VLBA - non-AST funding for 50% of VLBA operations or closure. – NRAO pursuing partnerships, prospects look very good

• GONG++ - non-AST support of operations or termination, one year after successful SDO commissioning.– NSO pursuing partnership with US Air Force Weather Agency

• Carry out cost reviews of all facilities– Completed by external firm, report in hand, will be working with

observatories to institute (minor) cost savings over next years

• NAIC (next slide)

National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC)

• Recommendation to ramp budget down to $8M by 2010, $4M in following years. Seek non-AST support to maintain operations or closure– NSF Atmospheric Sciences increasing contribution to

operations

• NSF (AST, ATM) will compete the next cooperative agreement for the management and operation of NAIC.– Recommendations of the 2006 AST Senior Review are being

factored into planning.– NSF expects to issue a detailed program solicitation in fall 2009,

with full proposals due six months following publication.– Expected to lead to the award of a single, five-year cooperative

agreement for the management and operation of NAIC for 2011-2015.

Changes in AST• FY2009 was a remarkably unusual year.

• The Division of Astronomical Sciences has been without a full-time Division Director for 18 months.

• We have been without an Deputy Division Director for 4 months.• We have an open permanent PO position. • We have a rotator leaving this month, a year before anticipated.• Since there was no back-fill, we will soon be short 3-4 Program

Officers. The added strain of ARRA was clearly felt.

• Interviews for DD and DDD are later this month but the most optimistic start is January 2010, probably significantly later.

• Permanent PO hiring has closed; IPA is now open (until November 20).

• New management can change the division’s direction.• Limited staff lack the leisure for planning.

Recent Activities and Actions

• NRAO Cooperative Agreement with AUI extended for five years.

• NOAO Cooperative Agreement with AURA extended for 54 months.

• NSO now has its own Cooperative Agreement, also with AURA for 54 months.

• Gemini partnership in flux. May have budgetary consequences.

• MRI R2 and ARI proposals (both ARRA) under review.

• ATST FDR and NSB action.

NSB Approval of ATST ConstructionOn August 6, 2009, the National Science Board approved an award to be derived from $146,000,000 of ARRA funds and $151,928,000 of appropriated MREFC funds, in accordance with the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the National Science Board authorizes the Director at his discretion to issue an eight-year award to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy for a not-to-exceed amount of $297,928,000 for the construction of the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope. This award will be contingent upon the publication of a record of decision authorizing the commencement of construction.

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

FY 2009 Appropriations

7,000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ARRA of 2009

146,000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Proposed Funding

10,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

14,928

Total

163,000 20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000 14,928

Cumulative 163,000 183,000 203,000 223,000 243,000 263,000 283,000 297,928

-20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000

Then

Yea

r ($K

)

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

Proposed ATST Funding Plan(includes contingency)

Proposed Funding

ARRA of 2009

FY2009 Appropriations

-20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000

Then

Yea

r ($K

)

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

Proposed ATST Funding Plan(includes contingency)

Proposed Funding

ARRA of 2009

FY2009 Appropriations

ATST Funding Plan(includes contingency)

2%

49%

49%FY2009 Appropriations

ARRA of 2009

Proposed Funding

ATST Funding Plan(includes contingency)

2%

49%

49%FY2009 Appropriations

ARRA of 2009

Proposed Funding

Construction Cost Estimate

Construction Cost Estimate (cont.)

• Costs are in spent-year dollars calculated with current OMB escalators.Costs are in spent-year dollars calculated with current OMB escalators.• 32.9% contingency – based on Monte Carlo simulations for 95% confidence.32.9% contingency – based on Monte Carlo simulations for 95% confidence.• Includes effect of mitigation of impact on Hawaiian Dark-Rumped Petrel, “Buy American” Includes effect of mitigation of impact on Hawaiian Dark-Rumped Petrel, “Buy American” costs, management of National Park Special Use Permit, etc.costs, management of National Park Special Use Permit, etc.• Does not include costs associated with cultural mitigation.Does not include costs associated with cultural mitigation.

20December 4, 2008 AURA SOVCFeb 27, 2007 AURA SOC 20

ATST Schedule Overview2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Site ConstructionSite Construction

NSF Cost Review

NSF PanelReview

Technology Development

Technology Development

Concept & DesignConcept & Design

SDRs

MREFC “Readiness”

ConstructionProposal

Proposed Site Decision

CDUPCDUP

NSF PDR

MREFC Panel “Exit Readiness Review”

FDR/Baseline ReviewSite EIS ProcessSite EIS Process

NSBIT & CIT & C

InitialOperations

InitialOperations

NSB

Environmental and Cultural Compliance

• Comprehensive site selection was based on site characteristics derived from flow-down from science drivers. 72 sites studied. Final site selected at Haleakala High Altitude Observatory (U. Hawaii), Maui. Haleakala is the only site that meets the requirements.

• Environmental Review and Permitting process for site:

– Final EIS submitted to EPA on July 24, 2009; published on July 31.– EIS is 3116 pages long; cost >$3M.– Application for building permit (state of Hawaii process) underway;

University of Hawaii leads.– More than thirty National Historic Preservation Act Section 106

consultations resulted in draft programmatic agreement currently under negotiation.

• Record of Decision in development. This will complete compliance requirements.

ATST SiteATST Primary Site

ATST Primary Site

ATST Alternate Site

ATST Alternate Site

MauiMauiMauiMaui

Hawai’iHawai’iHawai’iHawai’i

Mauna KeaMauna Kea

Pu’u KolekolePu’u Kolekole

Pu’u ’Ula’ula

The Geographical Context

HaleakalaHaleakala

ATST atop Haleakala, Maui