1 / 23

NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences

NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences. AAAC October 15-16, 2009 Craig Foltz. Summary. AST Budget Overview Retrospective look FY 2009 & ARRA Looking forward Status of Senior Review implementation Changes in AST Recent Activities and Actions. MPS Budget trends.

prue
Télécharger la présentation

NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences AAAC October 15-16, 2009 Craig Foltz

  2. Summary • AST Budget Overview • Retrospective look • FY 2009 & ARRA • Looking forward • Status of Senior Review implementation • Changes in AST • Recent Activities and Actions

  3. MPS Budget trends

  4. MPS budget trends (cont.)

  5. AST Budget trends 10 year doubling

  6. FY 2009 Budget Plan & FY 2010 Budget Request

  7. FY2009 spending(including American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, ARRA)

  8. ARRA Funding • As shown, roughly 2/3 for grants and 1/3 for overdue facility infrastructure improvements and preconstruction activities. • Quite strong restrictions; some suggested spending not permitted; funds bring additional reporting requirements. • Success rate in research grants program (AAG) rose from last year’s 21% to a healthy 36%. • Risk exaggerated: even if all awards were 3 years (they weren’t) and all of them came back in exactly 3 years (which they won’t), only a 15% increase, which we have seen and handled before. • Yes, the funding rate will not be this high in future. • Increases for CAREER (low success rate anyway) and Graduate Research Fellowships. • Infrastructure improvements long overdue but the problem persists.

  9. FY 2010 Budget Request AST Total: $250.8 M (increase of 10% over FY 2009) • Facilities: $141 M (56%) • Gemini - $19.1 M • NAIC - $8.4 M • NOAO - $27.5 M • NSO - $9.1 M • NRAO - $67.1 M • UROs - $10 M • Research and Education Grants: $110 M total (44%) • Roughly $45M for AAG; $37 M for instrumentation; • $25 M for special programs (AAPF, CAREER, REU, Cyberinfrastructure, NSF-wide, etc)

  10. Budget Projections? Administration, congressional support for NSF budget doubling over 10 years. How will AST fare in this growth? Administration priorities not well aligned with AST: • “Green” energy • Climate change • Short term economic recovery But historically AST has tracked NSF R&RA quite well

  11. AST Budget trends NSF projection

  12. Status of Senior Review Recommendations • VLBA - non-AST funding for 50% of VLBA operations or closure. • NRAO pursuing partnerships, prospects look very good • GONG++ - non-AST support of operations or termination, one year after successful SDO commissioning. • NSO pursuing partnership with US Air Force Weather Agency • Carry out cost reviews of all facilities • Completed by external firm, report in hand, will be working with observatories to institute (minor) cost savings over next years • NAIC (next slide)

  13. National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) • Recommendation to ramp budget down to $8M by 2010, $4M in following years. Seek non-AST support to maintain operations or closure • NSF Atmospheric Sciences increasing contribution to operations • NSF (AST, ATM) will compete the next cooperative agreement for the management and operation of NAIC. • Recommendations of the 2006 AST Senior Review are being factored into planning. • NSF expects to issue a detailed program solicitation in fall 2009, with full proposals due six months following publication. • Expected to lead to the award of a single, five-year cooperative agreement for the management and operation of NAIC for 2011-2015.

  14. Changes in AST • FY2009 was a remarkably unusual year. • The Division of Astronomical Sciences has been without a full-time Division Director for 18 months. • We have been without an Deputy Division Director for 4 months. • We have an open permanent PO position. • We have a rotator leaving this month, a year before anticipated. • Since there was no back-fill, we will soon be short 3-4 Program Officers. The added strain of ARRA was clearly felt. • Interviews for DD and DDD are later this month but the most optimistic start is January 2010, probably significantly later. • Permanent PO hiring has closed; IPA is now open (until November 20). • New management can change the division’s direction. • Limited staff lack the leisure for planning.

  15. Recent Activities and Actions • NRAO Cooperative Agreement with AUI extended for five years. • NOAO Cooperative Agreement with AURA extended for 54 months. • NSO now has its own Cooperative Agreement, also with AURA for 54 months. • Gemini partnership in flux. May have budgetary consequences. • MRI R2 and ARI proposals (both ARRA) under review. • ATST FDR and NSB action.

  16. NSB Approval of ATST Construction On August 6, 2009, the National Science Board approved an award to be derived from $146,000,000 of ARRA funds and $151,928,000 of appropriated MREFC funds, in accordance with the following resolution: RESOLVED, that the National Science Board authorizes the Director at his discretion to issue an eight-year award to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy for a not-to-exceed amount of $297,928,000 for the construction of the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope. This award will be contingent upon the publication of a record of decision authorizing the commencement of construction.

  17. Construction Cost Estimate

  18. Construction Cost Estimate (cont.) • Costs are in spent-year dollars calculated with current OMB escalators. • 32.9% contingency – based on Monte Carlo simulations for 95% confidence. • Includes effect of mitigation of impact on Hawaiian Dark-Rumped Petrel, “Buy American” costs, management of National Park Special Use Permit, etc. • Does not include costs associated with cultural mitigation.

  19. ATST Schedule Overview Proposed Site Decision Construction Proposal NSF Cost Review NSB MREFC “Readiness” MREFC Panel “Exit Readiness Review” Technology Development Concept & Design CDUP Site EIS Process FDR/Baseline Review SDRs Site Construction NSF Panel Review IT & C NSB Initial Operations Feb 27, 2007 December 4, 2008 AURA SOC AURA SOVC 20 NSF PDR 20

  20. Environmental and Cultural Compliance • Comprehensive site selection was based on site characteristics derived from flow-down from science drivers. 72 sites studied. Final site selected at Haleakala High Altitude Observatory (U. Hawaii), Maui. Haleakala is the only site that meets the requirements. • Environmental Review and Permitting process for site: • Final EIS submitted to EPA on July 24, 2009; published on July 31. • EIS is 3116 pages long; cost >$3M. • Application for building permit (state of Hawaii process) underway; University of Hawaii leads. • More than thirty National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultations resulted in draft programmatic agreement currently under negotiation. • Record of Decision in development. This will complete compliance requirements.

  21. The Geographical Context Pu’u ’Ula’ula ATST Alternate Site Maui Pu’u Kolekole Haleakala Mauna Kea Hawai’i ATST Primary Site ATST Site

  22. ATST atop Haleakala, Maui

More Related