NSF Town Meeting

1. NSF Town Meeting AAS Calgary 6 June 2006

2. Update Topics • NSF personnel news and AST realignment • FY2006 Current Plan • FY2007 Request • Grants Program news • Senior Review Status • ALMA Rebaselining and Cost to Complete • Impact on FY2007? • Implications for MREFC Entries?

3. Personnel News • “New” in AST • Phil Puxley • Tom Barnes • Wei Zheng • Julian Christou • Here in Calgary • Eileen Friel • Kim Elliott • Mike Briley • Tom Barnes • Wei Zheng • No news about new Assistant Director for MPS

4. AST Realignment

5. AST Organizational Structure

6. AST FY2006 Budget • 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

7. 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)

8. FY2007 Budget Request • 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

9. MPS by Division

10. MPS Ten-Year Funding History

11. Grants News • Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG) now has a program announcement - NSF 05-608 • Submission window 15 Sept - 15 Nov annually (hard deadline unchanged) • Other proposal preparation as in Grant Proposal Guide (unchanged) • Still supports individual investigator and collaborative group grants for observational, theoretical, laboratory, and data archival research in all areas of astronomy and astrophysics

12. Grants News • Significant increase in proposals to Astronomy & 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%

13. Some common myths about how/what NSF funds NSF doesn’t fund my research. I can’t find a program for my specialty (e.g. laboratory astrophysics, theory, data archival research) We will consider almost anything - ask a program officer if in doubt. We do not have specific targeted programs - leaves us flexible in receiving proposals in any topic, and freedom to adjust budgets as community interest shifts.

14. Some common myths about how/what NSF funds My proposal will do better if I ask for less. We fund proposals for the requested amount, if fully justified. We don’t routinely trim budgets, so ask for what you need, and justify it. It is not uncommon for the most highly ranked proposal in a panel to be the most expensive - they get funded.

15. Some common myths about how/what NSF funds NSF makes grants for 3 years, and if I ask for 5, the panel wont support it. NSF encourages requests for up to 5 years, if justified. NSF has set goals to increase grant duration - reduces work for PI’s, institutions, and NSF, and helps the science. Reviewers might think there are limitations where there are none. Not a factor in program officers’ decisions.

16. Some common myths about how/what NSF funds NSF doesn’t support research that could be funded by a NASA program. We support the most meritorious research, regardless of where the data come from. It is common to support programs using data from both space-based and ground-based facilities, including archival data. Reviewers may make comments that are not in line with NSF policy or practice - these aren’t a factor in the review.

17. Some common myths about how/what NSF funds I have to do EPO-like things to satisfy the Broader Impact criterion of review. Broader impact means much more than this for NSF, including: - work with undergraduate, graduate students - mentoring and professional development of post-docs - efforts to broaden participation and diversify the workforce - dissemination of data, software, tools, models and simulations (beyond just publishing in journals) - developing or enhancing infrastructure, e.g. shared instrumentation, networks, partnerships - benefits outside the narrow discipline and impact across multiple fields

18. Some common myths about how/what NSF funds NSF doesn’t have an educational supplement program like NASA, so I can’t ask for support for educational activities. We have no formal program or requirement, but you can always ask for support for educational or outreach activities, such as teacher support, student support, modest equipment, etc. (We can’t guarantee funding, since the money all comes from the same pot, but we will consider proposals.)

19. Bottom Line about AST Grants Program • NSF is fluid and can change programs, policies, and requirements on an annual basis. • Don’t assume what you knew to be true several years ago still is. Look at the Grant Proposal Guide and the web each year for changes in submission and program requirements. Ask us!

20. Senior Review Status • Original goal of 31 March for report • Goal only • Committee and community assured ample time for quality report • Committee met again in April • When draft is available • AST will verify facts, respond to requests for clarification • Committee will submit final report to MPS AC • AST will begin implementation plan • Consult facilities managers • Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,… • AST will take implementation plan to community • Town meeting series in Fall

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

22. ALMA Project • All three developed regions of the world are participating: • Americas: North America (US, Canada) + Chile [Host Country] • Europe: through European Southern Observatory (ESO) • Asia: (Japan) [Managed outside the core bilateral project] • Key features • Radio telescope array – core of 50 12-meter telescopes • Sensitive, precision imaging between 30 and 950 GHz • Located in Chile; high (5000 meters), dry site • Key science capabilities • Image proto-planetary disks • Image galaxies to z = 10, Milky Way to z = 3 • 10-100 times more sensitive and 10-100 times better angular resolution compared to current mm/submm telescopes

23. Rebaselining - I • Timing: • Rebaselining planned since full project was initiated (2/03) • Timing dependent on development of partnership and JAO • Began late 2004, new baseline(s) delivered to ALMA Board September 2005 • Why: • Partnerships not fully formed when construction was initiated • Complexity – and cost – of partnership of equals not clearly understood • Management system for common elements of project not fully developed • Early concerns: • Period of rapid increase in commodity prices, and costs in Chile • Antennas much more expensive than initially estimated by project and vendors • Project Management Control System required

24. Rebaselining - II • Main Initial Results: • Antenna number must be reduced in order to control costs • U.S. cost for a 50-element array grew by about 40% relative to original estimate • Schedule to complete is not greatly delayed (due to reduced antenna number) • Additional cost savings proposed to ALMA Board (subsequently approved) • Early science will slip

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

26. Four Reviews of New Baseline • National Academy CAA + ASAC scope studies: -- Can NANT be reduced below 64 and maintain the science? • ALMA Board review + delta review: “Beckwith Panel” • NSF review of North American project: “Hartill Panel” • NSF Director’s Review (internal): Synthesis of previous reviews 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.

27. Beckwith and Hartill Panel Reviews • ALMA is technically ready and remains exceptionally promising; no obvious technical show-stoppers • Can be built to stated costs • New baseline is complete, correctly costed • Cost growth is understood, contained • Management structure and oversight is robust (complexity is necessary) and working well • ALMA Board must continue stepping up to ownership of project – it is the only entity that can do so. • Critical to manage schedule – no slippage • Operations plan is mature for the present stage of the project, but should be pushed further quickly [In process]

28. Director’s Review • Major questions: • Continue with ALMA? • Basis of participation? ( Antenna number?) • Is contingency adequate? • Cost/overall benefit/risk was the core issue • The original ALMA science remains within reach with a 50-element baseline (albeit with longer integration times) • Capabilities vary with N2 • Comparison of 50 to 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

29. Overview of Rebaselined U.S. Cost and Schedule: 50-element ALMA • U.S. Cost • Total rebaselined cost: $499M • +45% increase • Original: $344M • Rebaselined cost: $478M • Additional contingency: $18M + $3M • Cost Containment • Scope reduction: 64 to 50 antennas • New partner likely • Manage contingency • Schedule • Original Completion: 2011 • Revised Completion: U.S. and ESO both spent out in FY 2012

30. FY2007 Request MREFC Runout

31. FY 2007 Request MREFC Runout – ALMA Impact?

34. Operating budgets and grant increments to realize the Decadal Survey recommendations ___________________________________________

35. MPS Ten-Year Funding History

36. Confidence for Moving Ahead • Quality of key personnel in Joint ALMA Office (JAO) and North American Office • Transfer of key elements of the project to JAO control • Project management control system now operating • Contingency at 25% of cost to complete • Plans for regular reviews • Continuing reform of ALMA Board • Empowerment of JAO; requiring JAO accountability • Budget and Personnel committees • Management and Science Advisory Committees • Taking ownership of the project • Commitment to resolve partnership issues • Management enhancements at NSF • Enhanced interaction among relevant NSF parties • Regular interaction between AD/MPS and President of ESO Council

37. AAG Program Evolution FY1996-2006

38. AAG Program Evolution FY1995-2006