1. NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences AAAC October 15-16, 2009 Craig Foltz

2. Summary AST Budget Overview –Retrospective look –FY 2009 & ARRA –Looking forward –Status of Senior Review implementation Changes in AST Recent Activities and Actions

3. MPS Budget trends

4. MPS budget trends (cont.)

5. AST Budget trends 10 year doubling

6. FY 2009 Budget Plan & FY 2010 Budget Request

7. FY2009 spending (including American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, ARRA)

8. ARRA Funding As shown, roughly 2/3 for grants and 1/3 for overdue facility infrastructure improvements and preconstruction activities. Quite strong restrictions; some suggested spending not permitted; funds bring additional reporting requirements. Success rate in research grants program (AAG) rose from last year’s 21% to a healthy 36%. Risk exaggerated: even if all awards were 3 years (they weren’t) and all of them came back in exactly 3 years (which they won’t), only a 15% increase, which we have seen and handled before. Yes, the funding rate will not be this high in future. Increases for CAREER (low success rate anyway) and Graduate Research Fellowships. Infrastructure improvements long overdue but the problem persists.

9. FY 2010 Budget Request AST Total: $250.8 M (increase of 10% over FY 2009) Facilities: $141 M (56%) –Gemini - $19.1 M –NAIC - $8.4 M –NOAO - $27.5 M –NSO -$9.1 M –NRAO - $67.1 M –UROs - $10 M Research and Education Grants: $110 M total (44%) –Roughly $45M for AAG; $37 M for instrumentation; –$25 M for special programs (AAPF, CAREER, REU, Cyberinfrastructure, NSF-wide, etc)

10. Budget Projections? Administration, congressional support for NSF budget doubling over 10 years. How will AST fare in this growth? Administration priorities not well aligned with AST: –“Green” energy –Climate change –Short term economic recovery But historically AST has tracked NSF R&RA quite well

11. AST Budget trends NSF projection

12. Status of Senior Review Recommendations VLBA - non-AST funding for 50% of VLBA operations or closure. –NRAO pursuing partnerships, prospects look very good GONG++ - non-AST support of operations or termination, one year after successful SDO commissioning. –NSO pursuing partnership with US Air Force Weather Agency Carry out cost reviews of all facilities –Completed by external firm, report in hand, will be working with observatories to institute (minor) cost savings over next years NAIC (next slide)

13. National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) Recommendation to ramp budget down to $8M by 2010, $4M in following years. Seek non-AST support to maintain operations or closure –NSF Atmospheric Sciences increasing contribution to operations NSF (AST, ATM) will compete the next cooperative agreement for the management and operation of NAIC. –Recommendations of the 2006 AST Senior Review are being factored into planning. –NSF expects to issue a detailed program solicitation in fall 2009, with full proposals due six months following publication. –Expected to lead to the award of a single, five-year cooperative agreement for the management and operation of NAIC for 2011- 2015.

14. Changes in AST FY2009 was a remarkably unusual year. The Division of Astronomical Sciences has been without a full- time Division Director for 18 months. We have been without an Deputy Division Director for 4 months. We have an open permanent PO position. We have a rotator leaving this month, a year before anticipated. Since there was no back-fill, we will soon be short 3-4 Program Officers. The added strain of ARRA was clearly felt. Interviews for DD and DDD are later this month but the most optimistic start is January 2010, probably significantly later. Permanent PO hiring has closed; IPA is now open (until November 20). New management can change the division ’ s direction. Limited staff lack the leisure for planning.

15. Recent Activities and Actions NRAO Cooperative Agreement with AUI extended for five years. NOAO Cooperative Agreement with AURA extended for 54 months. NSO now has its own Cooperative Agreement, also with AURA for 54 months. Gemini partnership in flux. May have budgetary consequences. MRI R 2 and ARI proposals (both ARRA) under review. ATST FDR and NSB action.

17. NSB Approval of ATST Construction On August 6, 2009, the National Science Board approved an award to be derived from $146,000,000 of ARRA funds and $151,928,000 of appropriated MREFC funds, in accordance with the following resolution: RESOLVED, that the National Science Board authorizes the Director at his discretion to issue an eight-year award to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy for a not- to-exceed amount of $297,928,000 for the construction of the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope. This award will be contingent upon the publication of a record of decision authorizing the commencement of construction.

18. FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017 FY 2009 Appropriations 7,000 - - - - - - - ARRA of 2009 146,000 - - - - - - - Proposed Funding 10,000 20,000 14,928 Total 163,000 20,000 14,928 Cumulative163,000183,000203,000223,000243,000263,000283,000297,928 Construction Cost Estimate

19. Construction Cost Estimate (cont.) Costs are in spent-year dollars calculated with current OMB escalators. 32.9% contingency – based on Monte Carlo simulations for 95% confidence. 32.9% contingency – based on Monte Carlo simulations for 95% confidence. Includes effect of mitigation of impact on Hawaiian Dark-Rumped Petrel, “Buy American” costs, management of National Park Special Use Permit, etc. Includes effect of mitigation of impact on Hawaiian Dark-Rumped Petrel, “Buy American” costs, management of National Park Special Use Permit, etc. Does not include costs associated with cultural mitigation. Does not include costs associated with cultural mitigation.

20. 20 December 4, 2008AURA SOVCFeb 27, 2007AURA SOC 20 ATST Schedule Overview 200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017 Site Construction NSF Cost Review NSF Panel Review Technology Development Concept & Design SDRs MREFC “Readiness” Construction Proposal Proposed Site Decision CDUP NSF PDR MREFC Panel “Exit Readiness Review” FDR/Baseline Review Site EIS Process NSB IT & C Initial Operations Initial Operations NSB

21. Environmental and Cultural Compliance Comprehensive site selection was based on site characteristics derived from flow-down from science drivers. 72 sites studied. Final site selected at Haleakala High Altitude Observatory (U. Hawaii), Maui. Haleakala is the only site that meets the requirements. Environmental Review and Permitting process for site: –Final EIS submitted to EPA on July 24, 2009; published on July 31. –EIS is 3116 pages long; cost >$3M. –Application for building permit (state of Hawaii process) underway; University of Hawaii leads. –More than thirty National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultations resulted in draft programmatic agreement currently under negotiation. Record of Decision in development. This will complete compliance requirements.

22. ATST Site ATST Primary Site ATST Primary Site ATST Alternate Site ATST Alternate Site MauiMaui Hawai’iHawai’i Mauna Kea Pu’u Kolekole Pu’u ’Ula’ula The Geographical Context Haleakala

23. ATST atop Haleakala, Maui