1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 1
The Proposed Budget
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 2
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.
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 3
First Year Budget Tables
YKK grant
+ 2 postdocs in YKK grant
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 4
+ 1 in YKK grant
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 5
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 6
Second Year: all in one grant
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 7
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 8
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).
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 9
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
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 10
• 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).
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 11
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.
1/14/05 NSF Site Visit/Budget/Shochet 12
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.