Division of Astronomical Sciences Senior Review Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee 10 May 2007

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

Recommendations from Other Planning Task Forces sponsored by Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC) Task Forces sponsored by Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC)  CMB Roadmap (report issued May 2005)  Dark Energy (report issued in June 2006)  ExoPlanet underway

Total of Decadal Survey recommendations ___________________________________________

“Senior Review” Responds to: Responds to:  Decade Survey recommendation re: facilities  Calls for examination of balance in AST portfolio (Committee of Visitors) Cross disciplinary, competitive review of NSF astronomy facilitiesCross disciplinary, competitive review of NSF astronomy facilities Set prioritiesSet priorities Consider possible closure or privatizationConsider possible closure or privatization Made imperative by: Made imperative by:  Budget outlook  Ambitions of the community  AST budget growth

“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  Adjustments in balance must be realistic and realizable  Recommendations must be based on well-understood criteria  Ample opportunity for community input  Goals  Examine impact and gains of redistributing ~$30M of annual spending from AST funds  Obtained through selective reduction in operations of existing facilities  Generate $30M by FY2011  Will be additional costs associated with reprogramming

“Senior Review”  Committee constituted October 2005 as subcommittee of MPS Advisory Committee  Roger Blandford, Chair  Produced report November 2006   (  Major recommendations for :  Base program in OIR, Radio, Solar  Reduced support, possible termination, changes in balance  Findings and observations on relationship between current and proposed program; advice to the community and to NSF

Finding 1 - The Scientific Challenge NSF finds this the most important conclusion of the report: “Proper maintenance of current facilities while simultaneously developing and beginning operation of the proposed new facilities is infeasible under any reasonable expectations for federal budget support based on past funding levels. The cuts that are proposed to the existing program are as deep as possible without causing irreparable damage and will only allow a start to be made on new initiatives.”

“Senior Review” Recommended changes Recommended changes  Reduce support to VLBA to $3M by FY2001, closure if sufficient outside funds not found  Reduce support to Arecibo/NAIC to $8M by FY2009 and to $4M in FY2011, closure if additional outside funds not found  Support of GONG++ to cease 1 year after successful deployment of NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (unless other support forthcoming)  Investigate possible reductions in administrative costs, scientific staff costs, selective observatory programs and site operations  Shift balance of NOAO programs to provide increased access to an optimized suite of high performance telescopes of all apertures in both hemispheres

Towards a National GSMT Program Need to assure a healthy scientific enterprise going into the GSMT era (community was heard in SR process) Need to assure a healthy scientific enterprise going into the GSMT era (community was heard in SR process)  Define the “System”  Appropriate range of aperture and access  Necessary instrumentation, maintained and supported  Assure that the system is robust against delays and uncertainty along the GSMT path Path from development through construction and into operations, including successful partnership formation, is complex Path from development through construction and into operations, including successful partnership formation, is complex  Requires leadership and planning at unprecedented level at NSF

Towards a National GSMT Program NOAO’s Role NSF has asked AURA/NOAO to act as NSF’s “Program Manager” for GSMT development NSF has asked AURA/NOAO to act as NSF’s “Program Manager” for GSMT development  Role similar to NASA center in development of major space missions Lead in defining the “system” and assuring its long-term health Lead in defining the “system” and assuring its long-term health Understand and champion national needs for a GSMT Understand and champion national needs for a GSMT  National Science Working Group  National “Design Reference Mission” to set scientific performance expectations, operational models Promote development at a pace that recognizes both private and federal timescales Promote development at a pace that recognizes both private and federal timescales Establish appropriate, symmetrical interfaces with TMT and GMT Establish appropriate, symmetrical interfaces with TMT and GMT

Senior Review Status AST has begun implementation plan AST has begun implementation plan  Consult facilities managers  Consult agency partners, CAA, AAAC,… Taking implementation plan to community 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 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 address: Welcome constructive comments to address:

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”   NOAO announcement of ReSTAR deliberations

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 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? 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 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.

Community Input is Essential input Decade Survey planning input