1. Paul Bellaire pbellair@nsf.gov STR Program Director Division of Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 775 S Arlington, Virginia 22230 SHINE and the NSF’s Solar Terrestrial Research (STR) Program

2. SHINE Supports the NSF’s Statutory Mission “To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.”

3. NSF Funding Sources for Solar Research NSFStructure * Dr. Jarvis Moyers and Dr. Cassandra Fesen are stepping down as of 1 Oct 2009 Ra, The Sun God NSF! * Breaking News: ATM becomes the Division of ‘Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences’ (AGS) as of 1 Oct 2009!

4. FY09 ARRA & Future NSF Budgets “The initiatives are made possible by the brightest budget picture in NSF's 60-year history. Some $3 billion from the one-time stimulus package, combined with a 6.5% boost to its regular 2009 budget, has brought spending to a record $9.5 billion this year. Its 2010 budget, excluding stimulus funds, would rise by 8.5%, to just over $7 billion, if Congress approves President Barack Obama's request.” -- Jeffrey Mervis, in Science, 29 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5931, pp. 1128 - 1129

5. STR Budget Detail FY2009 budget = $7.854M Additional Funds Provided to STR in FY2009: $135K from other NSF/GEO sources $73K from AFOSR for REU support $4.827M from ARRA Stimulus Package! (to be spent only in FY09)

6. STR ‘Proposal Pressure Gradient,’ by Fiscal Year Note the approximate three year periodicity – submissions grow steadily and peak about every three years, then crash. In the absence of fiscal growth, years of peak submission tend to coincide with years of low success rate. This is the inevitable result of the standard three-year award duration typically favored by the NSF. However, longer awards are now more common, skewing old trends. %# % # Number Submitted Percentage Awarded

7. FY2009 SHINE Competition Results 21 Submissions, 8 Unique Projects Funded; 22 PIs Involved! FY2009 Awardees in Surname Alphabetical Order: (Includes one collaborative project consisting of two institutions) (Includes one collaborative project consisting of two institutions) Joe Borovsky, Los Alamos National Lab Ben Chandran, University of New Hampshire Curt de Koning, University of Colorado, Boulder Tim Howard, SwRI Boulder (Lead PI) Alysha Reinard, University of Colorado, Boulder Bernard Jackson, University of California, San Diego Olga Panasenco, Helio Research Bernard Vasquez, University of New Hampshire Haimin Wang, NJIT Big Bear Solar Observatory Also presenting the FY2009 SHINE Postdoc Awardee: Mario Bisi, UCSD! CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL!! Total SHINE Expenditures: $1.83M in FY09 (base) + $0.93M (ARRA) $1.83M in FY09 (base) + $0.93M (ARRA) ~$2.0M expected in FY10 (sadly, no ARRA…) ~$2.0M expected in FY10 (sadly, no ARRA…) {

8. FYI: ATST Status Report ‘Design and Development’ funding began in 2001 ‘Design and Development’ funding began in 2001 Approved for inclusion in a future budget by the National Science Board in August 2007 Approved for inclusion in a future budget by the National Science Board in August 2007 Construction funding initiated in FY 2009 Omnibus Bill at $7M + $146M in ARRA (MREFC) Construction funding initiated in FY 2009 Omnibus Bill at $7M + $146M in ARRA (MREFC) Total cost ~$275M; Baseline to be established after Final Design Review (FDR) report received (FDR held May 18-21, 2009) Total cost ~$275M; Baseline to be established after Final Design Review (FDR) report received (FDR held May 18-21, 2009) Environmental and Cultural/Historic compliance nearing completion. Final EIS in August; record of decision to follow Environmental and Cultural/Historic compliance nearing completion. Final EIS in August; record of decision to follow Approval to spend will be requested in late summer/early fall of 2009 Approval to spend will be requested in late summer/early fall of 2009 Early science in 2017…? Early science in 2017…?

9. Upcoming Deadline for SHINE Proposals due 19 Aug 2009; approximately $1.2M in new funds will be available (about $0.8M is already invested in ongoing SHINE awards). The panel will be held in the Oct-Nov 2009 timeframe. Funds will be awarded around Jan 2010. Upcoming Deadline for SHINE: Proposals due 19 Aug 2009; approximately $1.2M in new funds will be available (about $0.8M is already invested in ongoing SHINE awards). The panel will be held in the Oct-Nov 2009 timeframe. Funds will be awarded around Jan 2010. NOTE The latest NSF ‘Users Manual’ can be found at this web site: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/nsf0929.pdf NOTE: The latest NSF ‘Users Manual’ can be found at this web site: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/nsf0929.pdf Important Info for Proposers Proposal & Award Policies & ProceduresGuide NSF 09-29 Read and Heed!! Read and Heed!! 

10. Awardees’ Annual Reports  I must respond to the Government Performance Results Act  I must respond to the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA, pronounced “Gipp-Rah”)  I need research highlights!! (Colorful graphics preferred!)  Annual Reports are due 90 days before award anniversary date!  Your funding increment – and that of any of your current Co-PIs on any NSF grant – is delayed until your report is approved!  Please submit a No Cost Extension if you cannot expend your annual budget due to unforeseen circumstances – do not just delay the submission of your annual report…

11. Unless you’ve been informed that your review is for a special competition or a specific panel, your review is for a proposal submitted to my core STR program. I need to obtain a minimum of 3 written reviews within 6 months. PLEASE HELP…! Special NSF competitions and panels have deadlines. However, core STR reviews, which are strictly mail-in, do not have hard deadlines (other than the NSF’s de facto 6 month rule). I would prefer to receive a delayed review than none at all! REVIEW REQUESTS

12. When you provide a review, you are not doing the NSF a favor – you are performing a key role expected of all scientists! The peer review process requires your participation to function. All reviewers benefit by remaining on the cutting edge of research topics and ideas. Some of you who cannot be funded by the NSF (by order of Congress, not by my whim!) feel you have no obligation to the community to provide the NSF with reviews. This odd and erroneous belief is non-collegial at best and unprofessional at worst. I routinely receive reviews from foreign colleagues who will NEVER receive NSF funding! They understand the meaning of a “solar physics community” – shame on those of you who do not... PROPOSAL REVIEWS