1. AST Update Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee 10 May 2007

2. Topics FY2007 Budget Situation FY2007 Budget Situation FY2008 Request FY2008 Request FY2009 Budget planning FY2009 Budget planning Senior Review Status and Town Meetings Senior Review Status and Town Meetings  Separate discussion this afternoon Next Decadal Survey planning Next Decadal Survey planning  Interagency perspectives?

3. 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 FY2007 Budget Request/Current Plan

4. Current FY2007 Budget Situation Current Plan approved by Congress Current Plan approved by Congress Now allocated at FY2007 Request levels. 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) 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 Proposal submission up ~10% in AAG  Success rates likely to be ~20% (were 24% in FY06 from 35% in FY03)

5. FY 2008 MPS Focus Areas Physical sciences at the nanoscalePhysical sciences at the nanoscale Science beyond “Moore’s Law”Science beyond “Moore’s Law” Physics of the universePhysics of the universe Complex systemsComplex systems Fundamental mathematical and statistical scienceFundamental mathematical and statistical science SustainabilitySustainability Cyber-enabled Discovery and InnovationCyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation

6. MPS Budgets by Division

7. MPS Facilities in Operation 1 The 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.

8. 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 FY2008 Budget Request for AST

9. MREFC Request

10. MPS Budgets by Division

11. AAG Program Evolution FY1996-2006

12. AAG Program Evolution FY1995-2007

13. 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

14. 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’

15. Community Input is Essential Email input astsenior-review@nsf.govastsenior-review@nsf.gov Decade Survey planning input Astro2010@nas.edu

16. 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 email address: Welcome constructive comments to email address: astsenior-review@nsf.gov

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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.

20. 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’

21. Community Input is Essential Email input astsenior-review@nsf.govastsenior-review@nsf.gov Decade Survey planning input Astro2010@nas.edu