National Science Foundation Division of Astronomical Sciences

1
National Science FoundationDivision of
Astronomical Sciences

• Puerto Rico Meetings
• 26 28 June 2007

2
Why are we here?

• To explain and clarify to answer questions
• To dispel misunderstandings and rumors
• To support the development of new partnerships
  that could assure the long-term future of Arecibo

3
Roles and Responsibilities

• Division of Astronomical Sciences
• Stewardship of public funds in support of
  ground-based astronomical research and education
• Determine, in consultation with research and
  education community, balance of funding among
  facilities, development, individual awards,
• Arrange for management of facilities by managing
  organizations
• Determine annual budgets for facilities (through
  Federal budget process) and approve annual
  program, designed by managing organization, to
  fit those budgets

4
Roles and Responsibilities

• Cornell University (under Cooperative Agreement
  with NSF)
• Manage NAIC (Arecibo) for NSF under broad
  guidelines
• Accept fiduciary responsibility for the facility
  and its employees and activities
• Manage facility within budget set by NSF
• Determine overall scope of observatory activity
• Determine distribution of available resources
  among observatory activities
• Subject to NSF approval

5
Senior Review

• A necessary AST stewardship process

6
A Difficult Task

• Examine impact and gains of redistributing 30M
  of annual spending from AST funds
• Obtained through selective reduction in
  operations of existing facilities
• Set target to generate 30M by FY2011 (they did
  not reach this target)

7
Recommendations

• SR recommends a decrease in AST support for
  Arecibo to 8Mover the next three years.
• ..sufficient external financial or personnel
  contributions be found to operate Arecibo and
  VLBA with competitive scientific productivity
  after 2011 with AST contribution not to exceed
  the expected function costs (4M and 3M,
  respectively). If these conditions cannot be
  satisfied, then the SR recommends that these
  facilities be closed
• The committeerecommends that AST engage an
  independent study to advise on the viability and
  cost of decommissioning the telescope. Obtaining
  this information is a prerequisite to long-term
  planning. Emphasis NSF

8
Closure PossibilityWho decides? When? How?

• Senior Review is advisory to NSF
• Who?
• NSF will make the decision
• When?
• In time to formulate FY2011 budget
• Early spring 2009
• How?
• Take Senior Review recommendation as starting
  point
• Consider science context
• Consider budget outlook
• Consider options for, and cost of,
  decommissioning
• Consider viability of Cornells plan for
  continued operations

9
What has been done

• Cornell reformulated NAIC astronomy program to
  fit within the 8M recommended budget level
• AST is providing balance of funding for platform
  painting not covered by carryover
• AST undertaking cost reviews of all facilities as
  recommended
• Cornell participated in planning
• Cornell providing detailed costs against centers
  common to all AST-supported facilities
• AST contracting for recommended study of
  viability and cost of decommissioning telescope
• Will also be done for VLBA, GONG, Sac Peak and
  Kitt Peak solar facilities
• Necessary to formulate a rational plan for beyond
  2011
• Federal budget cycle demands answer be known by
  January 2009.

10
Difficult Choices

• Finding these potential savings has been
  extremely difficult. In none of the proposed
  actions can the facilities targeted be seen as
  redundant to the scientific enterprise. Instead,
  the SR is recommending reduced AST funding or
  closure of telescopes that could be unique and
  productive for decades.

11
Finding 1

• Proper maintenance of current facilities while
  simultaneously developing and beginning operation
  of the proposed new facilities is infeasible
  under any reasonable expectations for federal
  budget support based on past funding levels. The
  cuts that are proposed to the existing program
  are as deep as possible without causing
  irreparable damage and will only allow a start to
  be made on new initiatives.

12
Why are we here?

• To explain and clarify to answer questions
• To dispel misunderstandings and rumors
• To support the development of new partnerships
  that could assure the long-term future of Arecibo

13
What remains to be done

• Establish Arecibo business plan post-2011
• Cornell must lead
• Must be in place by Spring 2009
• Elements of the plan
• A vision for Arecibo post-2011
• A resulting operations model and well understood
  cost
• 4M from AST, if a viable plan is in place
• 2.5M from ATM, 1.5M of this for operations
• Possible one-time NSF investments to reduce
  overall operations costs
• Necessary additional resources solidly committed
• Its time to start working seriously on the plan