nsf town meeting aascalgary 6 june 2006. update topics nsf personnel news and ast realignment nsf...

NSF Town Meeting

AAS AAS CalgaryCalgary

6 June 20066 June 2006

Update Topics

NSF personnel news and AST realignmentNSF personnel news and AST realignment FY2006 Current Plan FY2006 Current Plan FY2007 Request FY2007 Request Grants Program newsGrants Program news Senior Review StatusSenior Review Status ALMA Rebaselining and Cost to CompleteALMA Rebaselining and Cost to Complete

Impact on FY2007?Impact on FY2007? Implications for MREFC Entries?Implications for MREFC Entries?

Personnel News

““New” in ASTNew” in AST Phil PuxleyPhil Puxley Tom BarnesTom Barnes Wei ZhengWei Zheng Julian ChristouJulian Christou

Here in CalgaryHere in Calgary Eileen FrielEileen Friel Kim ElliottKim Elliott Mike BrileyMike Briley Tom BarnesTom Barnes Wei ZhengWei Zheng

No news about new Assistant Director for MPSNo news about new Assistant Director for MPS

AST Realignment

P LAS A AG A LE X CE S PIT R /C I/M S P AA A P FA T I

In d ivid u a l In ves tiga to r P ro gra m sN ig e l S h arp , Co o rd in a to r

A T I - R a d ioA T I - O p tica l/IR ; P R E S TU R OP a rtic le A stro p h ys icsM R I

M id -sca le P ro js an d In fra s tru c tu reV e rn P a nko n in , C oo rd in a to r

A L M AN R A ON O A O /N S ON A ICG e m in iE S ML S S T , G S M T T DPA T S T

F a c ilit ie s an d M R E FC P ro je c tsC ra ig F o ltz , C o o rd in a to r

D iv is io n o f A stro n o m ica l S c ie n ces

IT Specialist / FastLane ExpertKim Elliott

(703) [email protected]

Planetary Astronom y - PLAVernon Pankonin, Program Director

(703) 292-4902vpankoni@ nsf.gov

Stellar Astronom y & Astrophysics - SAAM ichael Briley, Program Director

(703) 292-4901m briley@ nsf.gov

Galactic Astronom y - GALRandy Phelps, Program Director

(703) 292-4910rphelps@ nsf.gov

Extragalactic Astronom y & Cosmology - EXCW ei Zheng, Program Director

(703) 292-4899w [email protected]

Extragalactic Astronom y & Cosmology - EXCNigel Sharp, Program Director

(703) 292-4905nsharp@ nsf.gov

Education & Special Programs - ESPRandy Phelps, Program Director

(703) 292-4910rphelps@ nsf.gov

Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoc FellowsDana Lehr, Associate Program Director

(703) 292-7456dlehr@ nsf.gov

ITR/Cyberinfrastructure/M SPANigel Sharp


IN D IV ID U A L IN V E S TIG A T O R P R O G R A M SNigel Sharp, Coordinator


Advanced Technologies & Instru. - RadioAndrew Clegg, Program Director


URORich Barvainis, Program M anager

(703) 292-4891rbarvai@ nsf.gov

Particle Astrophysics - PAVernon Pankonin, Program Director


Optical/IR Instru. & PRESTJulian Christou, Program Director

(703) 292-7234jchristo@ nsf.gov

M ID -S C A L E P R O JS & IN F R A S T R U C T U REVernon Pankonin, Coordinator

(703) 292-4902vp anko n i@ n sf.g ov

ALM A ProjectPhilip Puxley, Program M anager

(703) 292-7835ppuxley@ nsf.gov

ALM A ProjectRobert Dickman, Staff Associate

(703) 292-4893rdickm [email protected]

National Radio Astronom y Obs. - NRAOVernon Pankonin, Program M anager


National Optical Astronom y Obs. - NOAO/NSOThom as Barnes, Program Manager

(703) 292-7165tbarnes@ nsf.gov

NAICRich Barvainis, Program M anager

(703) 292-4891rbarvai@ nsf.gov

Gem iniCraig Foltz, Program Manager

(703) 292-4909cfoltz@ nsf.gov

Electrom agnetic Spectrum M anagem ent - ESMTom Gergely, Program Manager


Electrom agnetic Spectrum M anagem ent - ESMAndrew Clegg, Program Manager


F A C IL IT IE S & M R E FC P R O J D E V E L O P M TCraig Foltz, Coordinator

(703) 292-4909c fo ltz@ n sf.g ov

Division SecretaryRochelle Spicer-Monroe

(703) 292-7753rspicerm@ nsf.gov

Program Technology SpecialistAnton Jiggetts(703) 292-7105

ajiggett@ nsf.gov

Program AssistantAngela Piscitelli(703) 292-8820

[email protected]

Student AssistantAzuredee Perkins

(703) 292-4906aperkins@ nsf.gov

A D M IN IS T RA T IV E U N ITElizabeth Pentecost, Project Adm inistrator

(703) 292-4907epenteco@ nsf.gov

EXECUTIVE OFFICEREileen Friel

(703) 292-4895efriel@ nsf.gov

Associate Program DirectorDana Lehr

(703) 292-7456dlehr@ nsf.gov

D IV IS IO N D IR E C T O RG. W ayne Van Citters

(703) 292-4908gvancitt@ nsf.gov

AST Organizational Structure

• FY2006 Request $198.64M (FY2005 + 1.81%)

• Increases for Physics of the Universe and facilities stewardship (MPS priorities)

• FY2006 Appropriation - NSF request + ~1% increase for R&RA

• Rescission of 1.28% - resulting AST budget ~$199.65M (relative to $195.1M in FY2005)

• ‘recommended’ $51.4M budget for NRAO

- $4M over request

- must be found within existing program budgets

AST FY2006 Budget

Astronomy Research & Instrumentation -

• Request - $79.1 M

- up 4% from FY2005

- increase directed primarily toward Physics of the Universe

• Current Plan - $77.6 M- ‘additional’ funds allocated above request directed toward Physics of the Universe

- source of funds for NRAO earmark

-ATI program new awards curtailed (4 of 36 proposals funded)

- Includes $4M for LSST and $2M for GSMT TDP

- Includes ‘cyberinfrastructure’ funds for NVO start

Facilities level except for NRAO and Gemini (-rescission)

AST FY2006 Budget

FY2007 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

MPS by DivisionMPS by Division

FY 2004 Actuals

FY 2005 Actuals

Change from

04 to 05

FY 2006 Current

Plan

Change from

05 to 06FY 2007 Request

Change from

06 to 07AST 196.63 195.11 -0.8% 199.65 2.3% 215.11 7.7%CHE 185.12 179.26 -3.2% 180.78 0.8% 191.10 5.7%DMR 250.65 240.09 -4.2% 242.91 1.2% 257.45 6.0%DMS 200.35 200.24 -0.1% 199.30 -0.5% 205.74 3.2%PHY 227.77 224.86 -1.3% 233.13 3.7% 248.50 6.6%OMA 31.07 29.80 -4.1% 29.68 -0.4% 32.40 9.2%Total, MPS 1,091.59 1,069.36 -2.0% 1085.45 1.5% 1150.30 6.0%

R&RA 4293.34 4234.82 -1.4% 4,331.48 2.3% 4,665.95 7.7%

NSF 5652.01 5480.78 -3.0% 5,581.17 1.8% 6,020.21 7.9%

(Dollars in Millions)

MPS Ten-Year Funding MPS Ten-Year Funding HistoryHistory

MPS Subactivity Funding(Dollars in Millions)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

AST CHE DMR DMS PHY OMA

Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG) now has a program announcement (AAG) now has a program announcement - NSF 05-608- NSF 05-608

Submission window 15 Sept - 15 Nov annually Submission window 15 Sept - 15 Nov annually (hard deadline unchanged)(hard deadline unchanged)Other proposal preparation as in Grant Proposal Other proposal preparation as in Grant Proposal Guide (unchanged)Guide (unchanged)Still supports individual investigator and Still supports individual investigator and collaborative group grants for observational, collaborative group grants for observational, theoretical, laboratory, and data archival research in theoretical, laboratory, and data archival research in all areas of astronomy and astrophysicsall areas of astronomy and astrophysics

Grants News

Significant increase in proposals to Astronomy Significant increase in proposals to Astronomy & Astrophysics Research Grants program & Astrophysics Research Grants program

• Number of proposals up 20% in FY2006

• (following 15% increase in FY2005)

•Base budget in FY2006 did NOT increasing

• Using POU-tagged money and CI-tagged money to fund proposals to AAG as much as possible.

• Anticipate success rates in AAG to be ~20%

Grants News

NSF doesn’t fund my research. I can’t find a program for my NSF doesn’t fund my research. I can’t find a program for my specialty (e.g. laboratory astrophysics, theory, data specialty (e.g. laboratory astrophysics, theory, data archival research)archival research)

We will consider almost anything - We will consider almost anything - ask a program officer if in ask a program officer if in doubt.doubt.

We do not have specific targeted programs - leaves us We do not have specific targeted programs - leaves us flexible in receiving proposals in any topic, and freedom to flexible in receiving proposals in any topic, and freedom to adjust budgets as community interest shifts.adjust budgets as community interest shifts.

Some common myths about how/what NSF funds

My proposal will do better if I ask for less.My proposal will do better if I ask for less.

We fund proposals for the requested amount, if fully justified. We fund proposals for the requested amount, if fully justified. We don’t routinely trim budgets, so ask for what you We don’t routinely trim budgets, so ask for what you need, and justify it.need, and justify it.

It is not uncommon for the most highly ranked proposal in a It is not uncommon for the most highly ranked proposal in a panel to be the most expensive - they get funded.panel to be the most expensive - they get funded.


NSF makes grants for 3 years, and if I ask for 5, the panel wont NSF makes grants for 3 years, and if I ask for 5, the panel wont support it.support it.

NSF encourages requests for up to 5 years, if justified.NSF encourages requests for up to 5 years, if justified.

NSF has set goals to increase grant duration - reduces work for NSF has set goals to increase grant duration - reduces work for PI’s, institutions, and NSF, and helps the science.PI’s, institutions, and NSF, and helps the science.

Reviewers might think there are limitations where there are Reviewers might think there are limitations where there are none.none. Not a factor in program officers’ decisions. Not a factor in program officers’ decisions.


NSF doesn’t support research that could be funded by a NASA program.NSF doesn’t support research that could be funded by a NASA program.

We support the most meritorious research, regardless of where the data We support the most meritorious research, regardless of where the data come from. come from.

It is common to support programs using data from both space-based and It is common to support programs using data from both space-based and ground-based facilities, including archival data.ground-based facilities, including archival data.

Reviewers may make comments that are not in line with NSF policy or Reviewers may make comments that are not in line with NSF policy or practice - these aren’t a factor in the review.practice - these aren’t a factor in the review.


I have to do EPO-like things to satisfy the Broader Impact criterion of I have to do EPO-like things to satisfy the Broader Impact criterion of review.review.

Broader impact means much more than this for NSF, including:Broader impact means much more than this for NSF, including:- work with undergraduate, graduate students- work with undergraduate, graduate students- mentoring and professional development of post-docs- mentoring and professional development of post-docs- efforts to broaden participation and diversify the workforce- efforts to broaden participation and diversify the workforce- dissemination of data, software, tools, models and simulations - dissemination of data, software, tools, models and simulations (beyond just publishing in journals)(beyond just publishing in journals)- developing or enhancing infrastructure, e.g. shared instrumentation, - developing or enhancing infrastructure, e.g. shared instrumentation, networks, partnershipsnetworks, partnerships- benefits outside the narrow discipline and impact across multiple - benefits outside the narrow discipline and impact across multiple fieldsfields


NSF doesn’t have an educational supplement program like NSF doesn’t have an educational supplement program like NASA, so I can’t ask for support for educational activities.NASA, so I can’t ask for support for educational activities.

We have no formal program or requirement, but you can We have no formal program or requirement, but you can always ask for support for educational or outreach always ask for support for educational or outreach activities, such as teacher support, student support, modest activities, such as teacher support, student support, modest equipment, etc. (We can’t guarantee funding, since the equipment, etc. (We can’t guarantee funding, since the money all comes from the same pot, but we will consider money all comes from the same pot, but we will consider proposals.)proposals.)


NSF is fluid and can change programs, policies, and NSF is fluid and can change programs, policies, and requirements on an annual basis. requirements on an annual basis.

Don’t assume what you knew to be true several years ago Don’t assume what you knew to be true several years ago still is. Look at the Grant Proposal Guide and the web still is. Look at the Grant Proposal Guide and the web each year for changes in submission and program each year for changes in submission and program requirements.requirements.

Ask us!Ask us!

Bottom Line about AST Grants Program

Senior Review Status Original goal of 31 March for reportOriginal goal of 31 March for report

Goal onlyGoal only Committee and community assured ample time for quality reportCommittee and community assured ample time for quality report

Committee met again in AprilCommittee met again in April When draft is availableWhen draft is available

AST will verify facts, respond to requests for clarificationAST will verify facts, respond to requests for clarification Committee will submit final report to MPS ACCommittee will submit final report to MPS AC

AST will begin implementation planAST will begin implementation plan Consult facilities managersConsult facilities managers Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,…Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,…

AST will take implementation plan to communityAST will take implementation plan to community Town meeting series in FallTown meeting series in Fall

Some ALMA Milestones: 2002-2006 U.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional actionU.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional action Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of bilateral construction (2/03)Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of bilateral construction (2/03) ESO construction begins (1/03)ESO construction begins (1/03) Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004; continuing)Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004; continuing) Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03)Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03) U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03)U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03) Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04)Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04) Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04)Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04) All Chilean agreements completed (12/04)All Chilean agreements completed (12/04) U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05)U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05) Revised baseline delivered (9/05)Revised baseline delivered (9/05) Baseline Review – Beckwith panel (10/05)Baseline Review – Beckwith panel (10/05) ESO antenna contract signed (12/05)ESO antenna contract signed (12/05) ESO antenna transporter contract signed (12/05)ESO antenna transporter contract signed (12/05) Delta Review – Beckwith panel (1/06)Delta Review – Beckwith panel (1/06) North American Review – Hartill panel (1/06)North American Review – Hartill panel (1/06) NSF Director’s Review (3/06)NSF Director’s Review (3/06) NSB Approves new baseline (5/06)NSB Approves new baseline (5/06)

ALMA Project All three developed regions of the world are participating:All three developed regions of the world are participating:

Americas: North America (US, Canada) + Chile [Host Country]Americas: North America (US, Canada) + Chile [Host Country] Europe: through European Southern Observatory (ESO)Europe: through European Southern Observatory (ESO) Asia: (Japan) [Managed outside the core bilateral project]Asia: (Japan) [Managed outside the core bilateral project]

Key featuresKey features Radio telescope array – core of 50 12-meter telescopesRadio telescope array – core of 50 12-meter telescopes Sensitive, precision imaging between 30 and 950 GHzSensitive, precision imaging between 30 and 950 GHz Located in Chile; high (5000 meters), dry siteLocated in Chile; high (5000 meters), dry site

Key science capabilitiesKey science capabilities Image proto-planetary disksImage proto-planetary disks Image galaxies to z = 10, Milky Way to z = 3Image galaxies to z = 10, Milky Way to z = 3

10-100 times more sensitive and 10-100 times 10-100 times more sensitive and 10-100 times

better angular resolution compared to better angular resolution compared to

current mm/submm telescopescurrent mm/submm telescopes

Rebaselining - I Timing:Timing:

Rebaselining planned since full project was initiated (2/03)Rebaselining planned since full project was initiated (2/03) Timing dependent on development of partnership and JAOTiming dependent on development of partnership and JAO Began late 2004, new baseline(s) delivered to ALMA Board Began late 2004, new baseline(s) delivered to ALMA Board

September 2005September 2005

Why:Why: Partnerships not fully formed when construction was initiated Partnerships not fully formed when construction was initiated

Complexity – and cost – of partnership of equals not clearly understoodComplexity – and cost – of partnership of equals not clearly understood Management system for common elements of project not fully developedManagement system for common elements of project not fully developed

Early concerns:Early concerns: Period of rapid increase in commodity prices, and costs in ChilePeriod of rapid increase in commodity prices, and costs in Chile Antennas much more expensive than initially estimated by project Antennas much more expensive than initially estimated by project andand

vendorsvendors Project Management Control System requiredProject Management Control System required

Rebaselining - II

Main Initial Results:Main Initial Results:

Antenna number must be reduced in order to control Antenna number must be reduced in order to control costscosts

U.S. cost for a 50-element array grew by about 40% U.S. cost for a 50-element array grew by about 40% relative to original estimate relative to original estimate

Schedule to complete is not greatly delayed Schedule to complete is not greatly delayed (due to reduced antenna number) (due to reduced antenna number)

Additional cost savings proposed to ALMA Board Additional cost savings proposed to ALMA Board (subsequently approved)(subsequently approved)

Early science will slipEarly science will slip

Some ALMA Milestones: 2002-2006

U.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional actionU.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional action Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of bilateral construction (2/03)Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of bilateral construction (2/03) Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004; continuing)Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004; continuing) Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03)Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03) U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03)U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03) Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04)Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04) Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04)Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04) All Chilean agreements completed (12/04)All Chilean agreements completed (12/04) U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05)U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05) Revised baseline delivered (9/05)Revised baseline delivered (9/05) Baseline Review – Beckwith panel (10/05)Baseline Review – Beckwith panel (10/05) ESO antenna contract signed (12/05)ESO antenna contract signed (12/05) Delta Review – Beckwith panel (1/06)Delta Review – Beckwith panel (1/06) North American Review – Hartill panel (1/06)North American Review – Hartill panel (1/06) NSF Director’s Review (3/06)NSF Director’s Review (3/06) NSB approves new baseline (5/06)NSB approves new baseline (5/06)

Four Reviews of New Baseline

I.I. National Academy CAA + ASAC scope studies: National Academy CAA + ASAC scope studies:

-- -- Can NCan NANT ANT be reduced below 64 and maintain the science?be reduced below 64 and maintain the science? II.II. ALMA Board review + delta review: “Beckwith Panel”ALMA Board review + delta review: “Beckwith Panel”III.III. NSF review of North American project: “Hartill Panel”NSF review of North American project: “Hartill Panel”IV.IV. NSF Director’s Review (internal): Synthesis of previous NSF Director’s Review (internal): Synthesis of previous

reviews and decision on whether to proceed with ALMAreviews and decision on whether to proceed with ALMA

II & III: Complementary reviews with similar core charges:

Validate proposed new project baseline for construction and operations as a precondition for assessing whether the project should be continued; Help determine the correct scope and cost of the rebaselined project; Provide confidence that the project rests on a sound organizational basis; Provided confidence that the proposed budget and schedule to complete are sound and that both have adequate contingency; Assess whether ALMA is appropriately staffed to carry out construction and transition to operations.

Beckwith and Hartill Panel Reviews

ALMA is technically ready and remains exceptionally ALMA is technically ready and remains exceptionally promising; no obvious technical show-stoppers promising; no obvious technical show-stoppers

Can be built to stated costs Can be built to stated costs New baseline is complete, correctly costedNew baseline is complete, correctly costed Cost growth is understood, containedCost growth is understood, contained Management structure and oversight is robust Management structure and oversight is robust

(complexity is necessary) and working well(complexity is necessary) and working well ALMA Board must continue stepping up to ownership of ALMA Board must continue stepping up to ownership of

project – it is the only entity that can do so.project – it is the only entity that can do so. Critical to manage schedule – no slippageCritical to manage schedule – no slippage Operations plan is mature for the present stage of the Operations plan is mature for the present stage of the

project, but should be pushed further quickly [In process]project, but should be pushed further quickly [In process]

Director’s Review Major questions:Major questions:

Continue with ALMA?Continue with ALMA? Basis of participation? (Basis of participation? ( Antenna number?) Antenna number?) Is contingency adequate?Is contingency adequate?

Cost/overall benefit/risk was the core issueCost/overall benefit/risk was the core issue The original ALMA science remains within reach with a 50-The original ALMA science remains within reach with a 50-

element baseline (albeit with longer integration times)element baseline (albeit with longer integration times) Capabilities vary with Capabilities vary with NN22 Comparison of 50 to 40Comparison of 50 to 40

For a reduction of 8.6% in total cost reduces capability by 40%For a reduction of 8.6% in total cost reduces capability by 40%

The major consideration of the Director was preserving the scientific capability of ALMA

Overview of Rebaselined U.S. Cost and Schedule: 50-element ALMA

U.S. CostU.S. Cost TotalTotal rebaselined cost: $499M rebaselined cost: $499M +45% increase +45% increase

Original: $344MOriginal: $344M Rebaselined cost: $478MRebaselined cost: $478M Additional contingency: $18M + $3MAdditional contingency: $18M + $3M

Cost ContainmentCost Containment Scope reduction: 64 to 50 antennasScope reduction: 64 to 50 antennas New partner likely New partner likely Manage contingencyManage contingency

ScheduleSchedule Original Completion: 2011Original Completion: 2011 Revised Completion: U.S. and ESO both spent out in FY 2012Revised Completion: U.S. and ESO both spent out in FY 2012

FY2007 Request MREFC Runout

FY 2005 Actual

FY 20061

Current Plan

FY 2007 Request

FY 2008 Estimate

FY 2009 Estimate

FY 2010 Estimate

FY 2011 Estimate

FY 2012 Estimate

Ongoing ProjectsALMA 49.30 45.14 47.89 47.07 37.37 20.98EarthScope 44.80 46.40 27.40IceCube 48.10 46.25 28.65 22.38 11.33 0.95NEON 12.00 12.00 20.00 30.00 26.00SODV 6.08 53.09 42.88SPSM 16.86 9.13DOJ Judgment 3.00New StartsARRV 56.00 42.00OOI 13.50 48.00 77.00 78.00 53.00 40.00AdvLIGO - 28.48 42.81 46.31 36.25 22.90

Totals $165.14 $190.88 $240.45 $199.93 $188.51 $176.24 $115.25 $62.90

MREFC Account Funding(Dollars in Millions)

Totals may not add due to rounding.Estimates for FY 2008 and beyond do not reflect policy decisions and are presented for planning purposes only.1The FY 2006 Current Plan excludes $45.68 million carried forward from previous years. This includes an unobligatedbalance of $14.88 million from FY 2005 distributed pro rata among ALMA, EarthScope, IceCube and SODV; and anadditional carryover of $2.17 million for EarthScope, $6.59 million for IceCube, $8.80 million for SODV, and $13.17million for SPSM.

FY 2007 Request MREFC Runout – ALMA Impact?

FY 2005 Actual

FY 20061

Current Plan

FY 2007 Request

FY 2008 Estimate

FY 2009 Estimate

FY 2010 Estimate

FY 2011 Estimate

FY 2012 Estimate

Ongoing ProjectsALMA 49.30 45.14 47.89 47.07 37.37 20.98ALMA Increase 17.38 55.00 36.38 26.78 21.44 3.00EarthScope 44.80 46.40 27.40IceCube 48.10 46.25 28.65 22.38 11.33 0.95NEON 12.00 12.00 20.00 30.00 26.00SODV 6.08 53.09 42.88SPSM 16.86 9.13DOJ Judgment 3.00New StartsARRV 56.00 42.00OOI 13.50 48.00 77.00 78.00 53.00 40.00AdvLIGO - 28.48 42.81 46.31 36.25 22.90

Totals $165.14 $190.88 $257.83 $254.93 $224.89 $203.02 $136.69 $65.90

MREFC Account Funding(Dollars in Millions)

Totals may not add due to rounding.Estimates for FY 2008 and beyond do not reflect policy decisions and are presented for planning purposes only.1The FY 2006 Current Plan excludes $45.68 million carried forward from previous years. This includes an unobligatedbalance of $14.88 million from FY 2005 distributed pro rata among ALMA, EarthScope, IceCube and SODV; and anadditional carryover of $2.17 million for EarthScope, $6.59 million for IceCube, $8.80 million for SODV, and $13.17million for SPSM.

Operating budgets and grant increments to realize the Decadal Survey recommendations

___________________________________________

MPS Ten-Year Funding MPS Ten-Year Funding HistoryHistory

MPS Subactivity Funding

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

AST CHE DMR DMS PHY OMA

Confidence for Moving Ahead Quality of key personnel in Joint ALMA Office (JAO) and Quality of key personnel in Joint ALMA Office (JAO) and

North American OfficeNorth American Office Transfer of key elements of the project to JAO control Transfer of key elements of the project to JAO control Project management control system now operatingProject management control system now operating Contingency at 25% of cost to completeContingency at 25% of cost to complete Plans for regular reviews Plans for regular reviews Continuing reform of ALMA BoardContinuing reform of ALMA Board

Empowerment of JAO; requiring JAO accountabilityEmpowerment of JAO; requiring JAO accountability Budget and Personnel committeesBudget and Personnel committees Management and Science Advisory CommitteesManagement and Science Advisory Committees Taking ownership of the projectTaking ownership of the project Commitment to resolve partnership issuesCommitment to resolve partnership issues

Management enhancements at NSFManagement enhancements at NSF Enhanced interaction among relevant NSF parties Enhanced interaction among relevant NSF parties Regular interaction between AD/MPS and President of ESO CouncilRegular interaction between AD/MPS and President of ESO Council

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Fiscal year

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$(M

)

Median Annual Award AAG budget

AAG Program Evolution FY1996-2006

AAG Program Evolution FY1995-2006

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fiscal Year

Nu

mb

er

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Fu

nd

ing

rat

e

Proposals Funding rate

nsf town meeting aascalgary 6 june 2006. update topics nsf personnel news and ast realignment nsf...

Documents