# Presentation: 200137

## NSF Division of Astronomical SciencesSenior Review Update

- Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee
- 11 October 2005

## Topics

- Why we need a senior review
- Community aspirations
- Current resources
- Budget prospects
- What is the senior review
- Goals
- Boundary conditions
- How it is being carried out
- Community input
- Schedule
- Committee activities

## Projects Recommended in:Decadal SurveyQuarks to the CosmosPhysics of the Universe

## Decadal Survey Recommendations

- Small Initiatives:
- National Virtual Observatory (NVO)
- Laboratory Astrophysics program
- Low Frequency Array  (LOFAR)
- Theory postdoc program
- SOLIS expansion

## Decadal Survey Recommendations

- Moderate Initiatives:
- Telescope System Instrument Program (TSIP)
- Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST)
- Square Kilometer Array technology development (SKA)*
- Combined Array for Research in Mm-wave Astronomy (CARMA)
- VERITAS
- Frequency Agile Solar Radio Telescope (FASR)
- South Pole Sub-millimeter Telescope
- (* = Design/Development)

## Decadal Survey Recommendations

- Major Initiatives:
- Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA)
-  Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope (GSMT)
- Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA)
-  Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)

## Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory CommitteeThe confluence of a science, its policy and its management.

- Coordinated programs among the agencies, facilitated by OSTP
- A single, integrated federal strategy for astronomy and astrophysics research
- OSTP-convened planning board
- Advisory committee, linked to agency committees
- An interagency initiative on Physics of the Universe
- Structures for joint planning
- Mechanisms for joint implementation

## The Resultsand A Final Step

- OSTP convened Interagency Working Group (NSF/NASA/DOE) on Physics of the Universe under NSTC
- IWG produced an integrated plan for Physics of the Universe
- Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee formed – expanded and reformulated by NSF Authorization (NSF/NASA/OSTP)
*NSF/NASA/DOE and OSTP supported formal addition of DOE to AAAC structure*
*DOE added – effective 3/15/05*

## Physics of the Universe

## Quarks to Cosmos RecommendationsPhysics of the Universe Plan

- Quarks to Cosmos RecommendationsPhysics of the Universe Plan

- Quarks to Cosmos recommendations
-  CMB Polarization measurement
-  LSST
-  Southern Auger array
-  Interagency initiative on Physics of the Universe
- Physics of the Universe - Highest priority, ready
-  LSST
-  S-Z effect - coordinated NSF/NASA effort
- Strengthen numerical relativity research - planned in Physics

## CMB Roadmap

- NSF-lead, three agency activity
- Overall look at ground and space approach to CMB and CMB Polarization
- Ground experiments, detector development, background characterization, etc.
- Wide community participation
- Plot path towards CMBPol

## Other Inter-agency Efforts under Discussion

- Joint Dark Energy Task Force
- NSF, NASA, DOE
- Understand and exploit all probes and inter-dependencies
- Emphasis on near- and intermediate term activity
- Understand interaction with JDEM, LST

## Building a Sustainable Program	

- Promises to be transformational
- Built on underpinnings of community involvement in planning, advice, advocacy and “formal” agency recognition of those structures
- Realistic (ambitious is OK, but....)
- Supportable by the astronomical community
- Supported by the astronomical community (over the long haul – now 15 years)
- Appeals to broader scientific community
- “Understands” and meshes with agency processes (helping to shape them if possible)

## Horizon Facilities

**Near Term**

**Intermediate Term**

**Horizon Facilities**

- Gemini

- GSMT

- EVLA I

- VLA

- GBT

- LOFAR

- EVLA Phase II

- LSST

- SKA

- OWL?

- LOI?

- CHARA

- ALMA

- CARMA

- VLA

- GBT

- LOFAR

- LSST

- GSMT

- NAIC

- ATST

## Slide 15

## Slide 16

## Operating budgets and grant increments to realize the Decadal Survey recommendations

- ___________________________________________

## Astronomy Division Budget - FY2005

## Astronomy Division Budget - FY2005

**Facilities - ****$119.1 M**
-    National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO)
-    National Solar Observatory (NSO)
-    Gemini Observatory
-    National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)
-    National Astronomy & Ionosphere Center (NAIC)
-    University Radio Observatories

- $24.1 M
- $10.6 M
- (excludes TSIP, AODP)
- $15.5 M
- $47.0 M
- $10.5 M
- $11.3 M

## Astronomy Division Budget - FY2005

**Astronomy Research & Instrumentation - $75.4** M
- Astronomy & Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG)
- Particle Astrophysics
- Education & Special Programs (ESP)
-  CAREER, REU, Postdoctoral fellowships
- Advanced Technologies & Instrumentation (ATI)
-  Technology Development & Design for future facilities
- Electromagnetic Spectrum Management (ESM)
- Science & Technology Centers  (STC)
-  Center for Adaptive Optics (CfAO)
- NSF/MPS Priorities and programs
-  e.g. Cyberinfrastructure, Math Sciences

## AST Budget FY1995-2006

## Astronomy Division Budget Growth

- Annual budget has grown by 60% since 2000 ($73 M)
- But with $52M in directed appropriations in FY2001-2004
- 		- $32M to NRAO
- 		- $4M to NAIC
- 		- $4M to NOAO
- 		- $5M to ‘grants’
- 		- $7M to instrumentation** **
- Unable to plan for the increase and limited discretion over its use.
- Growth has stopped (FY2005 budget down by $2M from FY2004)

## Astronomy Division Budget Growth

- Observatory budgets FY1990 - 2006

## How can we afford it?

- Proposals and studies will sharpen cost
- Planning will provide phasing, decision points, down-selects
- Overall plan must meet fiscal reality
- How?

## “Senior Review”

- Responds to:
- Decade Survey recommendation re: facilities
- Calls for examination of balance in AST portfolio
- Made imperative by:
- Budget outlook
- Ambitions of the community
- AST budget growth

## “Senior Review”

- AST retreat
- Established understanding of need and goals
- Self-examination of balance
- Identified issues that NSF and community must address
- First time this has been undertaken by AST
- AST retreat “conclusions”
- IF significant progress is to be made on development of major recommendations, ~$30M per year of free energy in AST budget must be identified.
- Implications for program may be profound
- Balance: grants program (AAG) must be held sacrosanct
- Free energy will come from non-AAG portion of AST portfolio
- Endorsed by Committee of Visitors and Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee

## “Senior Review”

- Boundary Conditions
- AST budget will grow no faster than inflation for the remainder of the decade
- Unrestricted grants program (AAG) will be protected
- New facilities reviewed only 5-10 years after becoming operational
- Adjustments in balance must be realistic and realizable
- Committee will not revisit priorities and recommendations of community reports
- Committee will not consider individual projects or proposals or determine how funds are to be distributed
- Committee will not make site visits to individual facilities
- Recommendations must be based on well-understood criteria
- Ample opportunity for community input

## “Senior Review”

- Goals
- Examine impact and gains of redistributing ~$30M of annual spending from AST funds
- Obtained through selective reduction in operations of existing facilities and reallocation of instrumentation and development programs
- Generate $30M per year by FY2011
- Recommend appropriate balance between making progress on new projects and reinvesting in existing high priority components of existing programs and facilities
- Results will inform FY2008 budget development (i.e. change will not be visible immediately)
- May be additional costs associated with reprogramming

## Slide 29

## Operating budgets and grant increments to realize the Decadal Survey recommendations

- ___________________________________________

## “Senior Review”

- What has been done
- Letters to National Observatory directors (NOAO, NSO, NRAO, NAIC, Gemini) requesting input by end of July 2005
- Case for, and priority of, each component of their facilities, with a defensible cost for each
- Build the case for a forward-looking observatory operation, with highest priority components in FY2011
- Provide estimate of cost and timescale associated with divestiture of each component
- Directed them to
- Seek input from their communities
- Evaluate facilities and capabilities with carefully defined metrics (common to all facilities)
- Consider systemic issues such as complementarity, uniqueness, role in training and technical innovation.
- Explore new operating modes
- Submissions received and available on the web

## “Senior Review”

- What has been done (cont)
- Established web site for information
- Scheduled regional town meetings for community input
- AST visiting all facilities to meet with staff and management
- AST exploring implications of all issues identified. e.g. facility closure, divestiture

## “Senior Review”

- What has been done (cont)
- Convened a  committee of representatives of the community (subcommittee of MPS Advisory Committee)
- Roger Blandford - Stanford (Chair)

- John Huchra - Harvard
- Tim Killeen - NCAR
- Elizabeth Lada - U. Florida
- Malcolm Longair - Cambridge
- J. Patrick Looney - Brookhaven
- Bruce Partridge - Haverford
- Vera Rubin - Carnegie

- Tom Ayres - Colorado
- Donald Backer - UC Berkeley
- John Carlstrom - Chicago
- Karl Gebhardt - Texas, Austin
- Lynne Hillenbrand - Caltech
- Craig Hogan - U. Washington

## “Senior Review”

- What has been done (cont)
- Charge developed and will soon be published
- First meeting of committee 19-21 October
- Includes sessions with facilities managers and directors

## “Senior Review”

- Next steps
- Expect to have at least two additional meetings of committee
- January AAS - opportunity for public comment?
- Late March
- Request report by 31 March 2006
- But committee to take as much time as needed
- Continued interest in community input - 			_[http://www.](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[nsf](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[.](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[gov](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[/mps/](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[ast](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[/](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[ast](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)__[_senior_review.jsp](http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/ast_senior_review.jsp)_
- Email - _[astsenior-review@nsf.gov](mailto:astsenior-review@nsf.gov)_
- Contact us

## The Question

- “We recognize that this will be a difficult task and that the end result may well be that some facilities are judged to be no longer viable under the circumstances.  We also recognize that the landscape of U.S. astronomy could almost certainly change dramatically as a result of some these actions.  The question for all of us is to judge whether these changes are viable and lead to a vital and sustainable future, or whether the pace and scope of change necessary to realize the cumulative aspirations of the community under severely constrained budgets are too drastic.”

## AAAC Perspective?	

- Senior Review recommendations against the backdrop of specific interagency programs
- NSF program as part of the fabric of astronomy, present and future
- Other issues – discussion and input welcome

## Slide 38