1/14/05nsf site visit/budget/shochet1 the proposed budget

1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 1

The Proposed Budget


Methodology• Not a bottoms-up analysis of what we need to carry out our

program. If it were, the request would be larger (~5-7%).

• We took as reality the difficult budgetary constraints in the NSF HEP program office.

• We tried to get as much as possible from an inflationary or sub-inflationary increase. I will mention what was squeezed too much later.

Complication• The first year of the proposed grant coincides with the last

year of Kim’s current grant. In comparisons, I will add them.

• The year the current grant was approved was very bad for NSF HEP, resulting in large reductions. An agreement was made for supplements to help restore the base.


First Year Budget Tables

YKK grant

+ 2 postdocs in YKK grant


+ 1 in YKK grant


Second Year: all in one grant


Comparison of Existing & Proposed Funding

• Comparison for the same number of faculty: use the last 2 years of the current grant + Kim’s support for those 2 years + the supplement we received last year (to help restore the base from the large decrease).

• This is compared budget item by budget item with the first 2 years of funding in the proposal + Kim’s support for next year. (Beyond that, she is part of the group grant.)

• The average annual increase over that 2 year interval is then calculated. It can be compared to the 3.6% personnel/non-personnel weighted inflation (according to NSF guildelines).


12

1

3

2

1 Termination of State of Illinois accelerator R&D program

2 ATLAS is now attracting students

3 More travel to CERN

4 Senior research staff → 2.0

4


• Sanity check: Compare the final year of the previous grant (with Winstein) to the first year of the proposal + Kim’s final year. The average yearly increase over that 4 year period is 2.6% (between flat and flat-flat).


Our Choices• Protect graduate students and to a lesser extent postdocs

(assume more Fermi Fellows).

• Protect the E-Shop– Played a central role in all of our experiments

– Has provided important innovations

– Central to our training of students and postdocs

– Critical that technical infrastructure not disappear from universities

• Squeezing (too much) materials & supplies, permanent equipment, domestic travel, undergraduates.


It is a very tight budget• We have traditionally had very large detector responsibilities

as well as large physics output. A few more grad students would help a lot. Personal examples:– Graduate student who should be spending most of his time on

analysis is one of 2-3 in CDF maintaining SVT and is designing the new SVT Track Fitters.

– Progress on the FTK proposal has been much slower than I wanted because until a few months ago I had nobody to work on it.

• We have very little for R&D prototype hardware.

1/14/05nsf site visit/budget/shochet1 the proposed budget

Documents

site visitbudgetshochetit

year period

year interval

year of kims current

proposal kims final

proposed grant

group grant

previous grant