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 R&RA • 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 Director’s 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 Director’s 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 Director’s 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. Director’s Review • MPS/AST joint with BFA/LFP • Review the reviews • Major goals: • Continue with ALMA? • Basis of participation? ( Antenna number?) • Is contingency adequate?

18. Director’s 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: <$8M(/2) • Chilean labor issue resolved

19. Director’s 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?

26. Operating budgets and grant increments to realize the Decadal Survey recommendations ___________________________________________