1. NSF Program Update Astronomy & Astrophysics Advisory Committee 11 May 2006

2. Update Topics FY2006 Current Plan FY2006 Current Plan FY2007 Request FY2007 Request ALMA Rebaselining and Cost to Complete ALMA Rebaselining and Cost to Complete  Impact of FY2007?  Implications for MREFC Entries?

3. 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 AST FY2006 Budget

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

5. 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 AST FY2006 Budget

6. 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 FY2007 Budget Request

7. MPS by Division

8. MPS Ten-Year Funding History

10. Some ALMA Milestones: 2002- 2006 U.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional action U.S. construction begins (2/02) – Congressional action Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of bilateral construction (2/03) Signature of ALMA Agreement and start of bilateral construction (2/03) ESO construction begins (1/03) ESO construction begins (1/03) Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004; continuing) Staffing of Joint ALMA Office (2003-2004; continuing) Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03) Groundbreaking on Chilean site (11/03) U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03) U.S. and ESO initiate antenna procurement (12/03) Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04) Japan joins expanded partnership (9/04) Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04) Bilateral project initiates rebaselining (12/04) All Chilean agreements completed (12/04) All Chilean agreements completed (12/04) U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05) U.S. antenna contract signed (7/05) Revised baseline delivered (9/05) Revised baseline delivered (9/05) Baseline Review – Beckwith panel (10/05) Baseline Review – Beckwith panel (10/05) ESO antenna contract signed (12/05) ESO antenna contract signed (12/05) ESO antenna transporter contract signed (12/05) ESO antenna transporter contract signed (12/05) Delta Review – Beckwith panel (1/06) Delta Review – Beckwith panel (1/06) North American Review – Hartill panel (1/06) North American Review – Hartill panel (1/06) NSF Director’s Review (3/06) NSF Director’s Review (3/06)

11. ALMA Project All three developed regions of the world are participating: 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 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 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 10-100 times more sensitive and 10-100 times better angular resolution compared to current mm/submm telescopes

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

15. Four Reviews of New Baseline I. National Academy CAA + ASAC scope studies: -- Can N ANT be reduced below 64 and maintain the science? -- Can N ANT be reduced below 64 and maintain the science? II. ALMA Board review + delta review: “Beckwith Panel” III. NSF review of North American project: “Hartill Panel” IV. 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 ALMA is technically ready and remains exceptionally promising; no obvious technical show-stoppers Can be built to stated costs Can be built to stated costs New baseline is complete, correctly costed New baseline is complete, correctly costed Cost growth is understood, contained Cost growth is understood, contained Management structure and oversight is robust (complexity is necessary) and working well 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. 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 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] 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 MPS/AST joint with BFA/LFP Review the reviews Review the reviews Major goals: Major goals:  Continue with ALMA?  Basis of participation? (  Antenna number?)  Is contingency adequate?

18. Director’s Review – Project Status Rebaselining completed. 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: 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 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) The original ALMA science remains within reach with a 50-element baseline (albeit with longer integration times)  Capabilities vary with N 2  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 Quality of key personnel in Joint ALMA Office (JAO) and North American Office Transfer of key elements of the project to JAO control Transfer of key elements of the project to JAO control Project management control system now operating Project management control system now operating Contingency at 25% of cost to complete Contingency at 25% of cost to complete Plans for regular reviews Plans for regular reviews Continuing reform of ALMA Board 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 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 U.S. Cost  Total rebaselined cost: $499M  +45% increase  Original: $344M  Rebaselined cost: $478M  Additional contingency: $18M + $3M Cost Containment Cost Containment  Scope reduction: 64 to 50 antennas  New partner likely  Manage contingency Schedule 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 ___________________________________________