1. Building ALMA with “Equal” Partners Problems and Successes Paul Vanden Bout (NRAO) HEAD – March 2013

2. ALMA is a Major Facility ALMA is the largest ground-based observatory in the world: construction cost of ~ 1.5 G$ (in current year dollars spent) and an annual operations cost of ~ 100 M$; Remote site in Chile at 5000m elevation; Scale required an international project.

3. ALMA Site at 5000m elevation

4. High Site Operations Facility

5. Mid-Level Operations Facility at 3000m

6. Antenna Transporter

7. Joint ALMA Office in Santiago

8. ALMA is International First truly global astronomical partnership; Three major partners – North America, Europe, and the Far East; Twenty countries – NA (3), ESO (15), FE (2), and Chile as host nation; Observing time is shared NA(37.5%), ESO (37.5%), FE (25%), with 5% from each partner for non-partner PIs, after Chile’s 10%. Single TAC. Shares to be long term averages.

9. No ALMA Partner Has A Majority Share Originally, NRAO proposed the MMA, ESO the LSA, and Japan the LMSA; NRAO & ESO joined projects to form ALMA on a 50:50 basis, the least share acceptable to both parties, Japan joining later (25% share).

10. Organization The three partner Executives are NRAO (AUI), ESO, and NAOJ; Executives were responsible for construction deliverables and now for their share of the operations - Joint ALMA Office (JAO) in Chile; Each Executive has a Project Manager and Project Scientist; ALMA Director is part of the JAO and has his own PM and PS.

11. Benefits ALMA is a much larger, more capable facility than could have been built by any of the partners working alone. Each construction deliverable was managed by a team led by the responsible partner but with team members from the other partners, providing a diversity of ideas and team expertise that led to a better product.

12. Problems Central authority is weak - the JAO, has many responsibilities but little authority; No partner has a controlling interest; Progress is by consensus and this can be slow to achieve; There is a large burden on documentation and communications; Each partner is responsible for its own public relations.

13. Example of a Problem Large deliverables were split between the NA and European partners, notably, the site development and antennas; The site work was an easy division of effort – NA took the more difficult high site and Europe took the larger mid-level facility; But the result for the antennas was two sets of different antennas (that meet same specs), with Japan adding two more designs.

14. Budget & Schedule Construction is on re-baselined schedule – inauguration held on March 13; Interim operations began in 2011 and first science was presented in December 2012; Full operations are to begin 2014; Project was completed within re-baselined budget set in 2005, a +44% increase: difficult site (1/5), increases in material costs (2/5), and project complexity (1/4); +1y added to schedule was driven by antenna delivery schedule.

15. Would ALMA Have Been Better With A Different Organizational Scheme? Let one partner take the lead? Give the JAO more authority? Given the amounts of money involved, it is virtually certain that the funding sources would exert their prerogatives via their executives under any management scheme.

16. Is There a Better Model? Have large facilities built by single countries; Share time between facilities on a fair basis. Would save the overhead that attends international projects, saving money; But projects would be harder to sell without the cachet of being international.

17. Bottom Line - Success ALMA works: a blindingly fast, flexible, mm/submm imaging machine; Oversubscription is a factor of roughly 10; Initial science demonstrates breathtaking speed the full array will have.

19. ALMA View of the Young Solar System Analog Disk Around AU Mic Meredith A. MacGregor, David J. Wilner, Katherine A. Rosenfeld, Sean M. Andrews, Brenda Matthews, A. Meredith Hughes, Mark Booth, Eugene Chiang, James R. Graham, Paul Kalas, Grant Kennedy, Bruce Sibthorpe 2013 ApJ 762 L21 Meredith A. MacGregorDavid J. WilnerKatherine A. RosenfeldSean M. AndrewsBrenda MatthewsA. Meredith HughesMark BoothEugene ChiangJames R. GrahamPaul KalasGrant KennedyBruce Sibthorpe Feb 1 2013 Update19 Credit: D. J. Wilner Hypothetical view with planet and moon Central peak (star) with asteroid belt and disk/ring out to R=40 AU. Kuiper Belt?

20. Goal: Cycle 0 project (191) to measure emission from known circumstellar material and potentially circumplanetary dust near the planet Fomalhaut b using the compact (3hrs) and extended configurations (Boley, Payne, Corder, Dent, Ford, Shabram) No data Scattered starlight Dust ring Location of Fomalhaut Coronagraph mask 20 arcseconds ~ 150 AU Boley et al. astro-ph1204.0007 ALMA Cycle 0 Reference Image Band 7 (870 μm) Dust Continuum 1.5” x 1.2” The Formation of Planetary Systems: Fomalhaut GSFC 7 November 2012