NSF Program Update

1
NSF Program Update

• Astronomy Astrophysics Advisory Committee
• 11 May 2006

2
Update Topics

• FY2006 Current Plan
• FY2007 Request
• ALMA Rebaselining and Cost to Complete
• Impact of FY2007?
• Implications for MREFC Entries?

3
AST FY2006 Budget

• FY2006 Request 198.64M (FY2005 1.81)
• Increases for Physics of the Universe and
  facilities stewardship (MPS priorities)
• FY2006 Appropriation - NSF request 1
  increase for RRA
• 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

4
AST FY2006 Budget
Request - 119.5M
Plan - 122.0M
Facilities NOAO NSO
Gemini1 NRAO NAIC UROs
25.0 M 10.0M 18.5 M 47.4 M 10.6 M
8.0 M
24.55 M 10.0 M 18.26 M 50.74M 10.46 M
8.0 M
1Includes 1M Chilean buy-back
5
AST FY2006 Budget

• Astronomy Research Instrumentation -
• Request - 79.1 M
• - up 4 from FY2005
• - 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

6
FY2007 Budget Request

• FY2007 Request for AST 215.11M
• (FY2006 7.7 or 15.5M)
• 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

7
MPS by Division
8
MPS Ten-Year Funding History
9
MPS Ten-Year Funding History
10
Some ALMA Milestones 2002-2006

• U.S. construction begins (2/02) Congressional
  action
• Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of
  bilateral construction (2/03)
• ESO construction begins (1/03)
• Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004
  continuing)
• Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03)
• U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03)
• Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04)
• Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04)
• All Chilean agreements completed (12/04)
• U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05)
• Revised baseline delivered (9/05)
• Baseline Review Beckwith panel (10/05)
• ESO antenna contract signed (12/05)
• ESO antenna transporter contract signed (12/05)
• Delta Review Beckwith panel (1/06)
• North American Review Hartill panel (1/06)
• NSF Directors Review (3/06)

11
ALMA Project

• 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
• Radio telescope array core of 50 12-meter
  telescopes
• Sensitive, precision imaging between 30 and 950
  GHz
• Located in Chile high (5000 meters), dry site
• Key science capabilities
• Image proto-planetary disks
• Image galaxies to z 10, Milky Way to z 3
• 10-100 times more sensitive and 10-100 times
  better angular resolution compared to
  current mm/submm telescopes

12
Rebaselining - I

• 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
• 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
• 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

13
Rebaselining - II

• 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

14
Some ALMA Milestones 2002-2006

• U.S. construction begins (2/02) Congressional
  action
• Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of
  bilateral construction (2/03)
• ESO construction begins (1/03)
• Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004
  continuing)
• Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03)
• U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03)
• Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04)
• Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04)
• All Chilean agreements completed (12/04)
• U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05)
• Revised baseline delivered (9/05)
• Baseline Review Beckwith panel (10/05)
• ESO antenna contract signed (12/05)
• ESO antenna transporter contract signed (12/05)
• Delta Review Beckwith panel (1/06)
• North American Review Hartill panel (1/06)
• NSF Directors Review (3/06)

15
Four Reviews of New Baseline

• National Academy CAA ASAC scope studies
• -- Can NANT be reduced below 64 and maintain
  the science?
• ALMA Board review delta review Beckwith
  Panel
• NSF review of North American project Hartill
  Panel
• NSF Directors 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.

16
Beckwith and Hartill Panel Reviews

• ALMA is technically ready and remains
  exceptionally promising no obvious
  technical show-stoppers
• Can be built to stated costs
• New baseline is complete, correctly costed
• Cost growth is understood, contained
• 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.
• 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

17
Directors Review

• MPS/AST joint with BFA/LFP
• Review the reviews
• Major goals
• Continue with ALMA?
• Basis of participation? (? Antenna number?)
• Is contingency adequate?

18
Directors Review Project Status

• Rebaselining completed.
• Reviewed and verified by external reviews
• Underlying causes of cost escalation identified
  and addressed
• Technically ready and scientifically
  compelling No unidentified scope
• Cost containment, refinement of baseline, and
  management enhancements had continued since
  delivery of new baseline
• Careful scrubbing 20M(/2) savings
• Signing of antenna contracts retired greatest
  risks
• Downstream cost of two different antennas to the
  construction and operations projects found to be
  small lt8M(/2)
• Chilean labor issue resolved

19
Directors Review Why 50 Antennas?

• Cost/overall benefit/risk is the core issue
• The original ALMA science remains within reach
  with a 50-element baseline (albeit with longer
  integration times)
• Capabilities vary with N2
• Maximizes redundancy and minimizes phase
  coherence loss at the highest frequencies and
  longest baselines
• Comparison of 50 to 40
• 60 faster data taking, 25 more collecting area
  than a 40-element array
• For a reduction of 8.6 in total cost, retain
  only 62 of capacity
• Partnership weakened and U.S. marginalized if we
  buy 20 antennas
• ESO has already decided on a 25-antenna contract
• Cannot change our mind later
• Cost to re-open assembly line is prohibitive

20
Confidence for Moving Ahead

• Quality of key personnel in Joint ALMA Office
  (JAO) and North American Office
• Transfer of key elements of the project to JAO
  control
• Project management control system now operating
• Contingency at 25 of cost to complete
• Plans for regular reviews
• 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
• Enhanced interaction among relevant NSF parties
• Regular interaction between AD/MPS and President
  of ESO Council

21
Overview of Rebaselined U.S. Cost and Schedule
50-element ALMA

• U.S. Cost
• Total rebaselined cost 499M
• 45 increase
• Original 344M
• Rebaselined cost 478M
• Additional contingency 18M 3M
• Cost Containment
• Scope reduction 64 to 50 antennas
• New partner likely
• Manage contingency
• Schedule
• Original Completion 2011
• Revised Completion U.S. and ESO both spent out
  in FY 2012

22
FY2007 Request MREFC Runout
23
FY 2007 Request MREFC Runout ALMA Impact?
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Operating budgets and grant increments to realize
the Decadal Survey recommendations
___________________________________________