NSF Town Meeting AASCalgary 6 June 2006

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

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

AST Realignment

AST Organizational Structure

FY2006 Request $198.64M (FY %) 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 FY 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 (FY % 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 Division

MPS Ten-Year Funding History

Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG) now has a program announcement - NSF NSF  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 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% Grants News

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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.) Some common myths about how/what NSF funds

NSF is fluid and can change programs, policies, and requirements on an annual basis. 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. 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! Bottom Line about AST Grants Program

Senior Review Status Original goal of 31 March for report Original goal of 31 March for report  Goal only  Committee and community assured ample time for quality report Committee met again in April Committee met again in April When draft is available 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 AST will begin implementation plan  Consult facilities managers  Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,… AST will take implementation plan to community AST will take implementation plan to community  Town meeting series in Fall

Some ALMA Milestones: U.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional action U.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 ( ; continuing) Staffing of Joint ALMA Office ( ; 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]  Europe: through European Southern Observatory (ESO)  Asia: (Japan) [Managed outside the core bilateral project] Key features Key features  Radio telescope array – core of meter telescopes  Sensitive, precision imaging between 30 and 950 GHz  Located in Chile; high (5000 meters), dry site Key science capabilities Key science capabilities  Image proto-planetary disks  Image galaxies to z = 10, Milky Way to z = times more sensitive and times better angular resolution compared to current mm/submm telescopes times more sensitive and times better angular resolution compared to current mm/submm telescopes

Rebaselining - I Timing: 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: 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: 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

Rebaselining - II Main Initial Results: 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

Some ALMA Milestones: U.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional action U.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 ( ; continuing) Staffing of Joint ALMA Office ( ; 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. National Academy CAA + ASAC scope studies: -- Can N ANT be reduced below 64 and maintain the science? -- Can N ANT be reduced below 64 and maintain the science? II. ALMA Board review + delta review: “Beckwith Panel” III. NSF review of North American project: “Hartill Panel” IV. 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.

Beckwith and Hartill Panel Reviews ALMA is technically ready and remains exceptionally promising; no obvious technical show-stoppers ALMA is technically ready and remains exceptionally promising; no obvious technical show-stoppers Can be built to stated costs Can be built to stated costs New baseline is complete, correctly costed New baseline is complete, correctly costed Cost growth is understood, contained Cost growth is understood, contained Management structure and oversight is robust (complexity is necessary) and working well 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. 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 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] Operations plan is mature for the present stage of the project, but should be pushed further quickly [In process]

Director’s Review Major questions: Major questions:  Continue with ALMA?  Basis of participation? (  Antenna number?)  Is contingency adequate? Cost/overall benefit/risk was the core issue 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) The original ALMA science remains within reach with a 50-element baseline (albeit with longer integration times)  Capabilities vary with N 2  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

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

FY2007 Request MREFC Runout

FY 2007 Request MREFC Runout – ALMA Impact?

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

MPS Ten-Year Funding History

Confidence for Moving Ahead Quality of key personnel in Joint ALMA Office (JAO) and North American Office Quality of key personnel in Joint ALMA Office (JAO) and North 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 operating Project management control system now operating Contingency at 25% of cost to complete Contingency at 25% of cost to complete Plans for regular reviews Plans for regular reviews Continuing reform of ALMA Board 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 Management enhancements at NSF  Enhanced interaction among relevant NSF parties  Regular interaction between AD/MPS and President of ESO Council

AAG Program Evolution FY

AAG Program Evolution FY