From the Ground Up:Balancing the NSF Astronomy Program

Report of AST Senior Review Committee

Roger BlandfordKIPAC, Stanford

Members• Tom Ayres - Colorado• Don Backer - UCB• Roger Blandford - Stanford• John Carlstrom - Chicago• Karl Gebhardt - U Texas, Austin• Lynne Hillenbrand - Caltech• Craig Hogan - U Wash• John Huchra - Harvard• Elizabeth Lada - U Florida• Malcolm Longair - Cambridge• Pat Looney - Brookhaven• Bruce Partridge - Haverford• Vera Rubin - Carnegie DTM

Senior Review• Balance support of existing facilities against

ambitious proposed program• Recommended in decadal survey• Charge

– State principles– Do not revisit future program– Do not cut grants– Expect flat budget– Target $30M savings– Context of larger national, international programs

• Report by April 06!

Input• Prior reports, AANM, Q2C, PoU…• Observatory submissions + follow up• 2 meetings with observatory managements• 7 town meetings• >200 emails etc; many foreign• Observatory metrics

– “Greatest hits”, papers, citations, students…– Admin, operating budgets, cost per FTE…..

• NSF staff– Attentive to process– Respectful of independence

• 4 face to face meetings; many telecons, emails• 5 anonymous readers

Conventions• AST= OIR + RMS + Solar + Theory

= Grants + Gemini + NOAO + NAIC + NRAO + NSO + Ind + Tech• Rounded $M(2006)

– => total budget, # FTEs will be constant• Function costs

– Admin, sci, inst, dev, const, ops• Burdened costs

– Ops + share of admin, sci, inst• Base Program

– Must be preserved• Transition Program

– Reductions and changes in preparation for future program

Principles• Optimize science

– Maximize output for investment• Optimize workforce

– Observatory staff, training, efficiency• Public dividend

– Maintain E/PO, communicate scientific methodology • Bridging artificial divisions

– Ph/Ay, ast/solar, OIR/RMS, indep/federal, individuals/facilities, ground/space, big/small science

• Engaging university community– Align goals for research/education

• Astronomy without borders– Pursue cooperation, collaboration when advantageous

Federal vs Independent Observatories

• Federal Observatories– OIR: Gemini, NOAO– RMS: NAIC, NRAO– Solar: NSO

• Long tradition of private philanthropy in optical astronomy– Sequence of world-leading telescopes

• Yerkes, Lick, Mt Wilson, Mt. Palomar, Keck, Magellan– Historical tensions between astronomers with and

without access– Expensive to operate and upgrade– Alleviated by NSF purchase of community time to

pay for instruments• Moore, Carnegie… leading way to next generation

telescopes– Complex interaction with NSF through AURA

“Big” vs “small” science• Historically small telescopes survey and

big telescopes study in spectroscopic detail

• Specially instrumented small telescopes making many of the most interesting discoveries today– Exoplanets, Sloan Survey, dwarf planets,

brown dwarfs, supernovae, microlensing, GRBs…

• NOAO telescopes have contributedless of the science.

CurrentProgram

2006 ($191M)

Grants26%

Gemini9%

NOAO13%NAIC

5%

NRAO27%

NSO5%

Indep6%

Tech9%

65% increase in 20yrSimilar proportionsObservatories 60%

Observatories• Outstanding science

– Professional, dedicated staff; human infrastructure– Avoid irreparable harm

• OIR culture– NOAO =<4m; Gemini 2 x 8m– Keck 2 x 10m, Magellan 2 x 6.5m, HET 9m, MMT 6.5 m….– ESO 4 x 8m, Subaru 8m…– Many small, mid-sized telescopes

• RMS culture– NRAO, NAIC run world-leading telescopes– UROs are founts of technical innovation; students

• Solar culture– Many telescopes quite old– Organized, cohesive; national plus independent; space

Operations Challenge• Recognized in AANM, inconsistently applied• Rules of Thumb from AANM

– Annual Operations/Capital Cost=0.07• = 0.17(Gemini), = 0.12(GBT), = 0.04(VLA)

– Annual Upgrading/Capital Cost=0.03• = 0.05(Gemini, proposed)

– Annual Science/Capital Cost =0.03(0.05), large(moderate)• Closure costs may be high

– Arecibo, KPNO…• Optimistic aspirations for future projects

– ALMA, ATST, GSMT– Lessons learned in cost reviews

ALMA• 50 element mm/submm

interferometer• High site in Chile• Highest AST priority to construct and operate

efficiently• MREFC $500M (half share)• After 2011, $30M operations +upgrade

– 0.06 x capital cost– Interferometers cheaper to operate?– International projects more expensive?– No provision for science

• Not sole reason for SR!

Future Program

• Advanced Technology Solar Telescope– ($195M - international - USAF)– MREFC 2009?; Complete by 2014?

• Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope– GMT($500M?), TMT($750M?)

• Large Survey Telescope– LSST($300M? + DOE), PS-4($60M? USAF)

• Square Kilometer Array– Australia, South Africa ($1000M?) 2019?

Cost of operating all of theseand existing facilities outstripsany credible federal budget

Recommendations for current OIR program

• Gemini– International agreement through 2012

• NOAO– Provide access to optimized suite of high

performance telescopes from 1-10m• Deferred maintenance CTIO, KPNO• Balance determined competitively, not by quota

– Savings from admin, science, instrumentation– Support of GSMT, LST matched to federal plan

• Technology– AODP, ATI, TSIP

Recommendations for current RMS program• ALMA

– Plan economic and efficient operations now• Arecibo

– External support beyond 2011 (AST <$4M) or closure• GBT

– Operate with increased efficiency?• NRAO admin and science staff

– Savings?• URO + ATI

– ~level funding, competed• VLA

– EVLA completed in 2010, level funding• VLBA

– Seek external support beyond 2011 (AST <$3M) or close

Recommendation for currentsolar astronomy program

• On ATST construction timescale,– Close solar facilities at Kitt Peak, Sac Pk – One HQ– Move SOLIS– Close GONG++ one year after SDO– ~constant solar astronomy budget, staffing

General Findings• Scientific promise tremendous

– Compelling case for greater AST/NSF budget• Realistic life cycle planning essential

– Operating, using, upgrading, closing • Strategic Challenge

– Implementation plans for ATST, GSMT, LST, SKA• Many partners

– Reactive stance inadequate for major projects• Coherent National Astronomy Enterprise

– OIR commission of leading stakeholders• NOAO leadership?• International collaboration?

• Future Reviews– Consideration for next decadal survey– 5yr intervals thereafter

Summary• No simple tally because:

– Cost reviews to study details– Contingencies– Termination costs– Current vs future program ambiguity– International obligations

Substantial changes proposed

Summary• OIR

– Gemini minimum program• $1M saving; new instrument program, renewal?

– NOAO downsize to support base program• Decrease $13M partial budget• Small, mid-size telescope investment determined competitively

• RMS– Arecibo - share or close

• $6M or $10M saving

– VLBA - share or close• $3M or $6M saving

– Increase efficiency of GBT, NRAO admin, science• Decrease $22M partial budget

• Solar– Close most facilities on ATST, SDO schedule

• $10M saving tied to growth of ATST