NSF starts slicing

Scary times for our US chums. The dreaded NSF Portfolio Review finally did its thing. The news is pretty bad in places, but to be honest I think its less to do with our austere times than it is to do with historic overheating and the “funding wall” problem.

You can find the full report at this web page here . Stein Siggywatsit at Dynamics of Cats has already digested the report and written a nice commentary . Under the harsher but probably realistic “Scenario B”, here are the headlines :

  • ALMA, Gemini, EVLA, Blanco, and grants protected
  • LSST and ATST get a go ahead;
  • GSMT, CCAT will maybe get some peanuts
  • Mayall, KP 21.m, WIYN, GBT, VLBA out

I skimmed the report and found two figures illuminating. The first figure shows the evolution of the NSF Astronomy budget.

Budget scenariosIgnore the impressive temporary spike due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The story is not one of massive decline; the real budget will be pretty much the same as 2001, and about 7% less than most of this decade. The Decadal Survey (NWNH) wish list required a large expansion. Well, it was worth trying. So how can there be a problem ? Well, look at this next figure.

Budget squueze

This shows what it costs to just keep all the current commitments running. The boxes labelled LSST, CCAT, GSMT are the likely operating cost contributions, not the construction costs.

So basically what you see is that the US has done such wonderful things in the past, that if we keep them all going – especially the very newest things like ALMA – that uses up all the money forever. You want LSST, ATST, CCAT ? OK. What are you chopping ? Thats it.

The trouble with Big Science is that it is only ever worth doing things that are much better than before. The squeeze is ineluctable.

9 Responses to NSF starts slicing

  1. […] to try and parse it, especially if you are based in the US. The e-Astronomer has a nice intro post: NSF starts slicing. And Dynamics of Cats has an excellent summary: NSF AST: the bell […]

  2. Just the same old thing, budget problems. I’m happy with what we’ve got. Fully agree, I want the LSST personally and we all know money doesn’t grow on a 250 foot redwood tree. Something has to be sacrificed.

  3. Albert says:

    The ‘EARS’ component is not astronomy research. Why is this in the budget? Prioritizing a part-share in CCAT over the GBT may seem surprising. It is good to see that instrumentation development is partly protected, but will there still be telescopes left to put those instruments on? Or is it assumed that divested telescopes will continue to exist? The report attempts to limit cuts to the grants to 24% (a ‘severely stressed’ level). In comparison, the grants line in the UK has been cut by twice that percentage. The US is still better off.

  4. MikeW says:

    Has nothing interesting happened to post for weeks? Your public are getting fractious.

  5. ian smail says:

    he’s doing AGP-stuff… so i think he has a reasonable excuse.

  6. ian smail says:

    …if you’re not careful we’ll ask you back 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: