NSFDivision of Astronomical Sciences

AAS Congressional Visits Day

Tom Statler & Maria Womack

March 12, 2013

What NSF/AST Supports• National Observatories

– National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO)– National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)– National Solar Observatory (NSO)– Arecibo Observatory

• US Share of International Observatories– Gemini Observatory– Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA)

• Grants Programs– Astronomy & Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG)– Advanced Technology & Instrumentation (ATI)– CAREER

• REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates)• Midscale Projects• Virtual Observatory• Decadal Surveys• High-Performance Computing (Teragrid/XSEDE; not AST directly)• US membership in IAU

23/12/2013

An Overview of the AST Portfolio

33/12/2013

• AST supports a wide variety of activity.– State-of-the-art facilities

in optical, radio, and solar astronomy.

– Small-grants programs to support individual researchers.

– Mid-scale projects, e.g., surveys & instrumentation.

– Support of instrumentation and operations at non-NSF facilities.

• All of these are important!

NSF Myths• “NSF thinks that…”, etc.• “They’re just a bunch of bureaucrats.”• “Decadal surveys tell the agencies what to build and fund, and Congress

gives them the money to do it.” • “If NSF were doing its job correctly they would be asking Congress for

money.”

NSF Reality Recommendations can be made by a scientific process, but appropriations are made by a political process, of which scientific concerns are only one part.

NSF is not allowed to lobby Congress or take advocacy role in the budget process.

43/12/2013

Astronomy Community Input• FACA (Fed’l Advisory Comm. Act) Committees

– Each NSF directorate has one - MPSAC reports to Assistant Director for Math & Physical Sciences and NSF Director

• AST Portfolio Review was done by an ad-hoc MPSAC subcommittee– AAAC (Astron. & Astrophysics Adv. Comm.) chartered by Congress to watch NSF-

NASA-DOE interagency coordination & decadal survey response; required by law to report annually to agency heads and Congress

• National Academy of Sciences Boards & Committees– BPA (Bd. On Phys. & Astron.), SSB (Space Studies Bd.), CAA (Comm. on Astron. &

Astrophys.)– Decadal Survey Committees– Nat’l Academies conduct studies at the request of Congress or Federal agencies.– Decadal surveys requested & paid for by NSF, NASA, DOE. Agencies are under no

legal obligation to follow their recommendations.– Because NAS was created by Congress, NAS reports carry huge weight inside the

Beltway.

53/12/2013

3/12/2013

6

19902012

716

238

FY13: $283M requested by proposals (compared to President’s request of $244.6M for TOTAL AST budget)

Community Demand is Increasing

3/12/2013

7

Budget not keeping up with demand

AAG Proposal Requests—FY12

83/12/2013

Item Budget Percentage

Senior Personnel 17%

Grad Students 13%

Postdocs 8%

Undergrads 2%

Fringe Benefits 9%

Travel 6%

Other Direct Costs (incl. tuition) 6%

Indirect Costs 31%

Misc (professionals, publications, equipment, etc.)

8%

Decadal Survey Recommendations

93/12/2013

• LSST• Design & Development funding, MREFC approval from NSB

• Mid-Scale Innovations Program (MSIP)• Hoping for opening of budget wedge later in the decade

• GSMT US Share• Partnership planning solicitation issued, on condition of no construction

funding before 2020. An award made for ~$250K.

• ACTA• CCAT• Increases in current grants programs• Gemini increase

• $2M extra in FY 2012 mandated by Congress; more in future unlikely

• Theoretical & Computational Astrophysics Networks• NSF/NASA solicitation, $1.5M/yr from NSF for 3 yr (in FY13 request)

Facility Management

• NSF Facilities are not like NASA centers– Funded through Cooperative Agreements– Not under direct NSF control; e.g., NSF doesn’t make hiring decisions– (NASA parallels are JPL, STScI)

• Managing organizations are corporations or consortia– NOAO, NSO, Gemini managed by AURA– NRAO, US ALMA managed by AUI– Arecibo managed by SRI + USRA + Univ. Metropolitana

• Unlike Federal agencies, corporations are legally permitted to take an advocacy role in the budget & appropriations process.

103/12/2013

New Facility Construction

• NSF builds new research facilities through the MREFC (Major Research Equipment & Facility Construction) process– Multiple stages of internal review– Approval by National Science Board permits NSF Director, at

his/her discretion, to ask that construction funds be included in a future President’s Budget Request

– Congress passes budget and appropriations bills, President signs– Construction can begin when other legal requirements satisfied

• NSF divisions (e.g., AST) are then responsible for operating costs– Ramp up as construction nears completion– Must take away from other Division programs unless the pie grows

fast enough.

113/12/2013

AST Budget Challenge

123/12/2013

• Major new facilities are under construction.

• ALMA operations are ramping up to a U.S. share of about $40M/year (up from $23M in this chart).

• ATST operations later in the decade will ramp up to nearly $20M/year.

• Relative to this pie chart, the added cost for ALMA and ATST is 15%.

• Unless the overall budget increases, this must displace something else.

Portfolio Review

• Recommended by Astro2010 Decadal Survey: “If … budget is truly flat … there is no possibility of implementing … the recommended program … without … enacting the recommendations of the first 2006 senior review and/or … a second more drastic … review before mid-decade.” (p. 240)

• Carried out by ad-hoc subcommittee of the MPSAC• Report released Aug 2012

– PR Committee concluded that the “status quo” scenario would be destructive to grants, midscale programs and to overall portfolio balance.

– Recommended divestment of some existing facilities to maintain balance.– All parts of portfolio would be reduced under more pessimistic “Scenario B”.– Some community comments have criticized this scenario as too pessimistic.

133/12/2013

Portfolio Review Budget Scenarios

143/12/2013

• Committee Figure 3.3 is annotated here by budget ranges for FY13, ranging from the President’s Request level to a 5% across-the-board sequestration

PR Fig. 3.3

Pres. Req.

Seq.

Year FY11 FY12 FY13

Request $251.8M $249.1M $244.6M

Approp. $236.8M $234.6M -5%=$222M

Recent AST budget requests and appropriations:

NWNH≈$298M in FY13$

Impact of Maintaining Status Quo

3/12/2013

15

PR Fig. 3.4

Recommended Portfolios

163/12/2013• Inflation-adjusted graph of the major portfolio components.

NSF Response to PR Report

• NSF response document issued on August 31, 2012.• Decision on nature of divestments needed near end of CY

2013 in order to realize significant savings by FY 2017.• No decisions have been made by NSF to date.• Divesting a telescope does not need to imply closing

a site.• Agree with Committee assessment that failure to act will

reduce grants program four-fold in Scenario B • Resulting grants funding rate would be in 3%-4%

range.

• Decisions and response are not up to AST alone, but are decisions of AST and the executive branch, with Congressional input as part of the budget process.

3/12/2013

17

Sequester Outlook for the NSF

• Community members ask about the impact to NSF research programs, facilities, etc.– “I don’t think anyone quite understands how the sequester is really going to

work.” (Speaker Boehner on NBC Meet the Press, March 3, 2013)

• NSF Director has written that NSF will rely on 3 major principles:– Protect commitments to NSF’s core mission and maintain existing awards

• Current and future years of existing awards will be honored

– Protect the NSF workforce• NSF internal costs are only ~6% of total NSF budget, so furloughs are unlikely to be

necessary

– Protect STEM human capital development programs• CAREER, Graduate Research Fellowship, postdoctoral programs, and Research

Experiences for Undergraduates have high priority

183/12/2013

Budget Challenge Revisited

• AST budget is ~60% facilities, ~40% grants• Facility budgets can’t be reduced rapidly, even in principle

– Most of the money pays for people– Reduction in force requires severance pay– Can’t realize the savings until future years, hence any reduction must be

planned in advance (if permitted by President & Congress)

• Of the ~40% for grants, ~5% is “protected” (CAREER, GRFs, etc.)• Of the remaining ~35%, just under half is committed to awards made in

prior years• That leaves ~18% of the budget to absorb overall reductions• Hence an N% reduction in the AST budget translates to a 5N%

reduction in new awards.

193/12/2013

Summary

• Decadal surveys provide recommendations to NSF, NASA, and DOE. Decadal surveys carry significant weight in the US Government.

• Community demand for facilities and grant support has increased far more rapidly than federal budgets, even over the long term.

• NSF can build a new observatory through the MREFC line in the budget; but once built, AST is on the hook for operations.

• The Portfolio Review warns that failure to mitigate increasing facility costs will be damaging to the grants programs and the overall balance of the AST portfolio.

• Recommendations can be made by a scientific process, but appropriations are made by a political process, of which scientific concerns are only one part.

203/12/2013

BACKUPS

213/12/2013

Astro2010 Ramp + Budget Scenarios

223/12/2013

FY 2013 budget request

From NWNH

NWNH Actions—Large Programs

233/7/2013

• Continuing LSST D&D funding, aiming for possibility of MREFC start in FY 2014 or later (see later slides)

• Mid-Scale Innovations Program (MSIP), $4M-$120M– Difficult to find a budget wedge in current climate– Portfolio review committee recommended combining

with other similar-size programs, such as University Radio Observatories and Telescope Systems Instrumentation Program

– Maximum project size will be well below $120M

• GSMT partnership planning solicitation issued– Condition: No construction funding before 2020– Preparing to make award at $250K/yr level

• ACTA: No wedge visible, could propose to MSIP

LSST

• Passed Preliminary Design Review in Sept. 2011• NSF/DOE Memorandum of Understanding signed,

outlining agency scopes and areas of responsibility• Advanced to MREFC Readiness stage in July 2012,

by action of the National Science Board– NSF Director may include LSST construction in a future

budget request, at his discretion

• If construction is started in FY 2014, planned date for beginning of operations is October 2021, assuming a funding profile that meets a technically driven schedule

243/12/2013

NWNH Plans—Medium

253/12/2013

• CCAT Design and Development proposal funded– No apparent construction wedge in 2014/2015– Could compete for funds in MSIP, if AST is able to fund

that line.

“Small”/Other Recommendations

• Increases in general (AAG) and instrumentation (ATI) grants programs not possible without substantial facility divestment and improved budget outlook

• TSIP: see response to MSIP• Gemini: $2M increase in FY 2012 mandated by

Congress; extra funds in future years are unlikely• Theoretical & Computational Astrophysics Network:

NSF/NASA solicitation, $1.5M/yr from NSF for 3 yr• Gemini/NOAO consolidation: unlikely due to difficulty

of combining national and international observatories• CAA/DSIAC: this body

263/12/2013

Other Decadal Surveys

273/12/2013

• Vision and Voyages (no NSF budget targets employed)– Multidisciplinary, balanced solar program– Support all NSF ground-based facilities– Timely LSST completion– Echoes NWNH GSMT recommendation– More laboratory support for planetary science

• Solar & Space Physics (no AST budget targets employed)– DRIVE initiative: mid-scale NSF projects; vigorous ATST

and synoptic program support; science centers and grant programs; instrument development

Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope

• Solicitation issued December 30, 2011, entitled “Partnership Planning for a Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope”– $0.25M/yr for 5 yr, for planning for the possibility of an

eventual public/private GSMT partnership– Included constraint that no federal funding for construction

or operations is possible until after 2020– No commitment to eventual funding is made or implied by

this solicitation, and explicit acknowledgement of the Astro2010 priorities is included

283/12/2013

NSF Response to PR Report NSF response document issued on August 31, 2012. NSF must decide on nature of divestments near the end

of CY 2013 in order to realize significant savings by FY 2017. No decisions have been made by NSF to date. Divesting a telescope does not need to imply closing

a site. Emphasize principle of divestment in a responsible

manner. Partial divestments/partnerships of various sorts are

under active consideration. Intersection with management competitions?

Agree with Committee assessment that failure to act on their recommendations will reduce grants program four-fold in Scenario B Resulting grants funding rate would be in 3%-4%

range. Decisions and response are not up to AST alone, but are

decisions of AST and the executive branch, with Congressional input as part of the budget process.

3/12/2013

29

What Has AST Done Since August 2012? Exploring various partnership models for major facilities

that were recommended for divestment Working with DOE as they analyze alternatives for their

Mid-Scale Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (MS-DESI).

Meeting with managing organizations and potential partners regarding facilities given lower priority by PR Committee.

Will meet with representatives of telescopes hosted on Kitt Peak to understand their infrastructure requirements.

Proceeding on competitions for management of NOAO, NRAO, and Gemini, all to be decided in 2015 Solicitations out this summer will describe scope of

work. Announced at National Science Board that Green Bank

Telescope and Very Long Baseline Array will be partitioned from NRAO management competition. Provides opportunity to engage potential operators

and partners who may be interested in individual telescopes.

3/12/2013

30