# Presentation: 320552

## AST Update

- Astronomy and Astrophysics
- Advisory Committee
- 10 May 2007

## 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?

## 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

## 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)

## 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**

## MPS Budgets by Division 

## 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 .

## 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

## MREFC Request

## MPS Budgets by Division 

## AAG Program Evolution FY1996-2006

## AAG Program Evolution FY1995-2007

## 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

## 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’

## Community Input is Essential

- Email input _[astsenior-review@nsf.gov](mailto:astseniorreview@nsf.gov)_
- Decade Survey planning input _Astro2010@nas.edu_

## 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](mailto:astsenior-review@nsf.gov)_

## 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

## 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?

## 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.

## 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’

## Community Input is Essential

- Email input _[astsenior-review@nsf.gov](mailto:astseniorreview@nsf.gov)_
- Decade Survey planning input _Astro2010@nas.edu_

## Slide 22