Division of Astronomical Sciences Senior Review

1
Division of Astronomical Sciences Senior Review

• Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee
• 10 May 2007

2
CARMA
ALMA
SKA
GBT
LOFAR
GBT
LOFAR
EVLA Phase II
EVLA I
NAIC
OWL?
VLA
GSMT
VLA
CHARA
LOI?
Gemini
Horizon Facilities
GSMT
LSST
ATST
Intermediate Term
LSST
Near Term
3
Recommendations from Other Planning

• 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

4
Total of Decadal Survey recommendations
___________________________________________
5
Senior Review

• 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 facilities
• Set priorities
• Consider possible closure or privatization
• Made imperative by
• Budget outlook
• Ambitions of the community
• AST budget growth

6
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

7
Senior Review

• Committee constituted October 2005 as
  subcommittee of MPS Advisory Committee
• Roger Blandford, Chair
• Produced report November 2006
• (http//www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/seniorreview/sr-report
  .pdf)
• 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

8
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.

9
Senior Review

• 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 NASAs 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

10
Towards a National GSMT Program

• 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
• Requires leadership and planning at unprecedented
  level at NSF

11
Towards a National GSMT ProgramNOAOs Role

• NSF has asked AURA/NOAO to act as NSFs 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
• 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
• Establish appropriate, symmetrical interfaces
  with TMT and GMT

12
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_at_nsf.gov

13
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

14
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?

15
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.

16
Community Input is Essential

• Email input astsenior-review_at_nsf.gov
• Decade Survey planning input Astro2010_at_nas.edu