National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix B: Charge to the Committee and Origins of the Study
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

Appendix C
Histories of Projects Funded by National Science Foundation Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account

This appendix briefly describes the projects approved for construction funding through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. For each project, the committee provides a brief description and a timeline of major developments. Project descriptions and funding information for all funded projects were reviewed by NSF staff.

The following projects are described:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

WHAT IS A LARGE FACILITY PROJECT?

In FY 1995, NSF created what is now known as the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account to support the “acquisition, construction, commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment, facilities, and other such capital assets” that cost more than several tens of millions of dollars.1 As of September 2003, the account has funded 12 large facility projects, and four new projects are proposed in NSF’s FY 2004 budget request to receive funding. Note that in some cases there was or is a gap in funding.

The projects listed below have been, are being, or are proposed to be supported by the MREFC account. They appear with the fiscal year in which construction funding began or is proposed to begin.

Construction Projects Supported in the Past:

  • Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)—FY 1992

  • Gemini Observatories—FY 1991

  • Polar Support Aircraft Upgrades—FY 1999

  • South Pole Safety and Environmental Project (SPSE)—FY 1997

  • Terascale Computing Projects—FY 2000

Construction Projects Currently Being Supported:

  • South Pole Station Modernization (SPSM)—FY 1998

  • Large Hadron Collider (LHC)—FY 1999

  • Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)—FY 2000

  • Atacama Large Millimeter Array/Millimeter Array (ALMA/ MMA)—FY 1998

  • EarthScope—FY 2003

  • IceCube Neutrino Detector—FY 2002

Initiated Projects Currently Experiencing a Gap in MRE Funding:

  • High-Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER)—FY 2000

1  

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, National Science Foundation: Major Research Equipment and Facility Construction (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2002).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

New Starts Proposed in NSF’s FY 2004 Budget for FY 2004, 2005, or 2006 Support:

  • National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Phase I—FY 2004

  • Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP)—FY 2006

  • Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI)—FY 2006

  • Integrated ocean drilling program (IODP)—FY 2005

ALMA (ATACAMA LARGE MILLIMETER ARRAY)

Description

The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) will be a 64-element array of 12-m-diameter radio antennas in the Chilean Andes. The array is designed to study the millimeter- and submillimeter-wavelength portions of the spectrum with “unprecedented imaging capabilities and sensitivity many orders of magnitude greater than anything of its kind today.” [1] The principal contributors to the development and construction of ALMA are the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) and the European Southern Observatory (ESO), but many other international partners are involved.

See Table C-1 for a timeline of the major developments.

Approval and Funding History

MREFC funding for planning, design, and development began in FY 1998; this stage of the project is referred to as ALMA I. MREFC funding for construction began in FY 2002; the construction phase is referred to as ALMA II.

Managing Institutions

ALMA is an international collaboration. The US side of the project is led by Associated Universities, Inc., and the NRAO. Europe is an equal partner in ALMA with funding and execution carried out through the ESO.

Development Summary
Millimeter Array

In the spring of 1982, it was recognized that a proposal for a 25-m dish for millimeter astronomy initiated by the NRAO in 1975 [2] might never be funded [3, 4]. Robert Wilson called for a meeting at Bell Telephone Laboratories (BTL) in October 1982, intentionally excluding NRAO scien-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-1 Timeline of Major Developments

1975

NRAO proposes 25-m dish for millimeter astronomy to be built on Mauna Kea in Hawaii [2].

1981

NRAO astronomers begin initial design work for millimeter-wavelength array [6, 7].

Spring 1982

Astronomy community recognizes that proposed 25-m dish will never be funded [3, 4].

October 1982

First meeting of BTL working group, attended by 18 scientists [3].

December 1982

First meeting of NSF Subcommittee on Millimeter- and Submillimeter-Wavelength Astronomy in Washington, D.C. (Alan Barrett, chair) [3].

February 1983

Joint meeting of BTL working group, Barrett subcommittee, and others to discuss scientific details of new facility [3].

April 1983

Final Barrett subcommittee meeting in Chicago [3]. Barrett subcommittee report is sent to Astronomy Advisory Committee, which endorses recommendation to do design study for millimeter array and passes it on to NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences [3].

1984

Design study for MMA begins [2].

Fall 1985

First MMA science workshop at Green Bank [2, 5].

November 1989

Second MMA science workshop to update scientific goals and array design in preparation for MMA construction proposal [5].

September 1990

Associated Universities, Inc. submits MMA proposal to NSF [5].

May 1991

National Research Council’s The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics recommends MMA second among new ground-based initiatives.

October 1991

Two-stage approach for MMA is endorsed by NSF Advisory Committee for the Astronomical Sciences: development phase (detailed designs and prototypes) and construction phase [5, 8].

March 1992

NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences requests 3-year plan for detailed design of MMA [5].

September 1992

MMA detailed design plan is submitted to NSF [5, 8].

November 18, 1994

NSB approves NRAO’s project-development plan for MMA [5, 8].

April 1995

NRAO begins site testing in high altitude Atacama Desert in Chile [12].

June 1995

NRAO and Japanese astronomers sign memorandum of understanding to jointly investigate Chilean sites [5].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

October 1995

At MMA science workshop, it is concluded that array should have larger baseline and include submillimeter capability [6, 8]; these enhancements would require larger site and higher standards of atmospheric quality than original concept [6].

June 1997

ESO and NRAO sign agreement to explore merging of Large Southern Array (LSA) and MMA; three joint working groups are established to study merger: Science Working Group, Technical Working Group, and Management Working Group [9].

Fall 1997

Congress approves funding for MMA design and development, expected to last 3 years [5].

December 1997

Technical workshop is held to examine possibility of merging MMA and Large Millimeter-Submillimeter Array [5].

April 1998

LSA and MMA feasibility study is completed [9].

May 1998

NRAO report recommends that MMA be built in Atacama Desert [6].

June 1998

Phase 1: Research and development of MMA project begins [5] after NSB authorization.

June 1999

US-European memorandum of understanding is signed, merging two Phase 1 projects into ALMA [1].

2000

National Research Council Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee reaffirms its 1991 endorsement of ALMA.

2002

ALMA receives MREFC funding.

January 24, 2002

NSB Executive Committee authorizes full construction of ALMA [15].

Fall 2002

Prototype antenna testing begins in New Mexico [11].

February 25, 2003

Rita R. Colwell (director, NSF) and Catherine Cesarsky (director general, ESO) sign agreement to jointly construct and operate ALMA [10].

tists, to decide the next step for the millimeter-astronomy community [2, 3]. At the same time, the NSF Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS/AC) formed a Subcommittee on Millimeter- and Submillimeter-Wavelength Astronomy,2 chaired by Alan H. Barrett. All five members of the Barrett subcommittee were also members of the BTL

2  

Subcommittee members: Alan H. Barrett (Chair), Charles J. Lada, Patrick Palmer, Lewis E. Snyder, and William J. Welch.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

working group, and there was a great deal of cooperation between the two groups [3], but the meetings of the Barrett subcommittee were attended by NRAO astronomers. In April 1983, the Barrett subcommittee recommended that a design study for a millimeter array be undertaken, and the NSF MPS/AC passed the recommendation on to NSF [3, 5].

The design work for what would become known as the Millimeter Array (MMA) had in fact started in 1981 at the NRAO [6, 7]. The NSF design study began in 1984, and a gradual community consensus emerged that the NRAO should handle the project [2]. A series of communitywide workshops were held in 1985, 1987, and 1989 [8]. At the first workshop, in the fall of 1985, the scientific goals and design characteristics were discussed. A design concept for the MMA was developed and further refined in the later workshops [2, 5].

In September 1990, Laura Bautz, director of the NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST), received a proposal for the MMA from the NRAO astronomers [2, 5]. The proposal called for an array of 40 8-m antennae with a total collecting area of 2,010 m2 [2]. In May 1991, the National Research Council report The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics recommended the MMA as a second priority among new ground-based initiatives [13]. In October 1991, the NSF Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences endorsed a plan for the MMA to proceed in two stages: a development phase, in which key equipment would be designed and prototyped, and then a construction phase [5, 8]. A few months later, the NSF AST requested a 3-year plan for a development program, which it received in September 1992 [5]. In November 1994, the NSB approved the project-development plan for the MMA, which demonstrated a scientific need for the facility and embraced a two-stage process to design and build it: a formal three-year design and development phase to be followed by construction, subject to a separate approval by the NSB.

Site Selection

Sites for the MMA were initially considered in Arizona and New Mexico in 1985 when site evaluation and testing began. As a point of reference, similar testing equipment was set up at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. The advantages of the North American sites were their affordability and location in the United States; when the proposal was submitted in 1990, these were the only sites under serious consideration. At NSF’s urging, site consideration expanded to include Mauna Kea and the Atacama Desert in Chile. In May 1998, an NRAO study strongly recommended that the MMA be built in the Atacama Desert [6].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Large Southern Array3

In the late 1980s, discussions took place in Europe regarding a possible millimeter array to be built in the Southern Hemisphere. A European study group was formed, and the Large Southern Array (LSA) project began at a meeting in 1991 as a proposal for an array with a total collection area of 10,000 m2. In 1994, a recommendation made by the ESO millimeter working group to establish a permanent millimeter advisory committee was endorsed. Later that year, the group proposed that a design study be initiated. In April 1995, a memorandum of understanding concerning a study for a large millimeter array in the Southern Hemisphere was signed by the ESO, the Institut de Radio Astronomie Millimétrique, the Onsala Space Observatory, and the Netherlands Foundation for Research in Astronomy. The group began to develop antenna concepts and performed detailed testing at several sites in Chile [9].

ALMA

Because similar sites were being examined for the LSA and the MMA in northern Chile, the possibility of a partnership became obvious. In June 1997, an agreement was signed by the ESO and the NRAO to explore such a partnership. The agreement established three joint working groups: a Science Working Group to consider the scientific objectives, a Technical Working Group, and a Management Working Group [9]. The LSA and the MMA had different concepts and requirements, which were reconciled after detailed study of four antennae [9]. The two projects officially merged in June 1999 to become the Atacama Large Millimeter Array [1]. The current ALMA design has 64 12-m antennae with a total collecting area of some 7,000 m2.

ALMA first received MREFC funding for design and development work in FY 1998. An antenna prototype began testing in New Mexico in the fall of 2002 [11]. In February 2003, Rita R. Colwell (director of NSF) and Catherine Cesarsky (director general of the ESO) signed an agreement to jointly construct and operate ALMA [10]. The first ALMA production antenna will be delivered to Chile in FY 2006 [11], early science observing will begin in 2007, and full-scale operations in FY 2012.

3  

Japanese radioastronomers have also been developing a Large Millimeter-Submillimeter Array (LMSA). The possibility of merging the LMSA and MMA has been discussed since 1995, but no decisions have been made [5].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
References

[1] Background Information: Atacama Large Millimeter Array. National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

[2] Robert P. Chase. 1990. Millimeter Astronomers Push for New Telescope. Science 249:1504.

[3] Alan H. Barrett. Report of Subcommittee on Millimeter- and Submillimeter-Wavelength Astronomy. April 1983 Astronomy Advisory Committee, National Science Foundation; MMA Memo No. 9.

[4] M. Mitchell Waldrop. 1983. Astronomers Ponder a Catch-22. Science 220:698.

[5] Al Wootten. Historical Information About the MMA. Jan. 25, 1999. Available at <http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/mmahistory.html>.

[6] Recommended Site for the Millimeter Array. 1998. National Radio Astronomy Observatory, May.

[7] Frazer Owen. Interoffice Memo. 1982.The Concept of a Millimeter Array. Very Large Array, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, September 10. MMA Memo No. 1.

[8] Paul A. Vanden Bout, director, NRAO. 1997. FY98 Budget – National Science Foundation, Subcommittee on Basic Research, House Committee on Science, April 9.

[9] LSA/MMA Feasibility Study, April 1998. Available at <http://www.eso.org/projects/alma/doclib/reports/lsa_report98/report_june99.html>.

[10] Charles E. Blue and Richard West. 2003. U.S. and European ALMA Partners Sign Agreement. National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Press Release, Feb. 25. Available at <http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/almasigning/index-p.shtml>.

[11] Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction. National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request.

[12] S. Radford and L. Nyman. 2001. ALMA Project Book, Version 5.5, Chapter 14; July 25. Chajnantor Site Studies: Overview available at <http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/mma/sites>.

[13] National Research Council. 1991.The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

[14] Correspondence from NSF, October 2003.

[15] Approved Minutes of 367th NSB Meeting (NSB 02-53), March 14, 2002.

EARTHSCOPE

Description

EarthScope, a geographically distributed geophysical and geodetic instrument array, will seek to deploy a large and diverse array of instrumentation over North America to learn “how the continent was put together, how it is moving now, and what is beneath it” [1]. EarthScope will comprise the US Seismic Array (USArray), the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO), the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD), and the satellite-based Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR). The first three will be funded through the NSF MREFC account, and the latter is planned to be jointly developed with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). US Array and SAFOD are referred to as phase I, and PBO as phase II. See Table C-2 for a timeline of the major developments.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-2 Timeline of Major Developments

Before 1998

Discussions among members of earth-sciences community to identify facilities needs for future research [2].

1998-2002

Concept development for EarthScope continues with NSF R&RA funding [3].

July 1999

EarthScope presented to NSB Committee on Programs and Plans for FY 2001 budget planning.

October 3-5 1999

Workshop on PBO in Snowbird, Utah [18].

November 30 -

EarthScope identified as long-term GEO funding need during

December 1, 1999

fall NSF Advisory Committee for Geosciences meeting [4].

May 1-2, 2000

GEO/AC announces $17.44 million request for NSF MREFC account in FY 2001 to fund EarthScope [5].

October 2000

EarthScope listed as part of tools development in NSF GPRA strategic plan for FY 2001-FY 2006 [6].

October 30 November 1, 2000

Second PBO workshop in Palm Springs, California [18].

May 3-4, 2001

USArray Design Workshop in San Diego, California [18].

May 22-25, 2001

PBO workshop in Pasadena, California [18].

September 6, 2001

NSF director Rita R. Colwell identifies EarthScope as among top funding priorities [8].

September 7, 2001

NSF director receives letter from president of Geological Society of America encouraging placement of EarthScope high on MREFC priority list [9].

October 2001

NSB identifies EarthScope as among highest priorities.

October 10-12, 2001

EarthScope workshop in Snowbird, Utah [18].

October 29, 2001

National Research Council review of EarthScope integrated science [10].

December 11, 2001

USArray Steering Committee meeting in San Francisco, California [18].

January 30 February 1, 2002

EarthScope education and outreach workshop in Boulder, Colorado [18].

February 4, 2002

President Bush signs budget proposal for FY 2003, including $35 million for EarthScope [11].

February 2002

Earth-sciences community launches letter-writing campaign to ensure approval of EarthScope funding [11].

February 11-13, 2002

USArray Steering Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. [18].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

March 2002

US-Canada PBO workshop in Seattle, Washington [18].

March 25-27, 2002

EarthScope information-technology workshop in Snowbird, Utah, results in formation of EarthScope Information Technology Forum [14].

June 2002

US-Mexico PBO workshop in San Diego, California [18].

June 12, 2002

Drilling for pilot hole into San Andreas fault for SAFOD begins with funding from International Continental Drilling Program [19].

August 4-7, 2002

Creating the EarthScope Legacy workshop in Snowbird, Utah [18].

October 31 -November 3, 2002

EarthScope workshop on active magmatic systems in Vancouver, Washington [18].

November 26, 2002

EarthScope Science and Education Committee (ESEC) formed [15]

December 6-10, 2002

American Geophysical Union Special Session on EarthScope in San Francisco, California [18].

January 10-11, 2003

ESEC meeting in Washington, D.C. [18].

February 3, 2003

President Bush’s budget proposal for FY 2004 includes $45 million for EarthScope [16].

February 20, 2003

President Bush signs budget for FY 2003, allocating $30 million for EarthScope [12,13].

March 2-4, 2003

EarthScope Complementary Geophysics workshop in Denver, Colorado [18].

April 17, 2003

NSF releases solicitation for science and education proposals for EarthScope [20].

April 23-25, 2003

USArray and the Great Plains meeting in Manhattan, Kansas [18].

June 15, 2003

House budget proposal includes $43.5 million for EarthScope in FY 2004 [17].

Approval and Funding History

Funding for construction of USArray and PBO was requested in FY 2001, but Congress did not provide it. EarthScope was included in the draft FY 2002 request but was not included in the request to Congress. The project (all three elements) was included in the FY 2003 request to Congress and was funded.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Managing Institutions

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology will manage USArray, UNAVCO, Inc., PBO, and Stanford University SAFOD.

Development Summary

Initial discussions concerning what would become EarthScope began over a decade ago when earth scientists began identifying observations and measurements needed to address natural hazards and to answer outstanding problems in the earth sciences. Through a series of NSF-funded workshops and conferences, a cohesive set of planning documents outlining specific needs for large observational facilities emerged. That also helped to establish a precedent for cooperation between the scientific community and government agencies including NSF, the US Geological Survey, and NASA. By the late 1990s, the various concepts were consolidated into the single EarthScope initiative [2]. Initial funding for concept development was provided by the NSF Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account from FY 1998 to FY 2002 [3].

During the fall 1999 meeting of the NSF Advisory Committee for Geosciences (GEO/AC), EarthScope was identified as one of the long-term funding needs for the NSF Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) [4]. During the spring 2000 meeting, Margaret Leinen, assistant director of the NSF Directorate for the Geosciences (GEO), announced that $17.44 million for FY 2001 was requested from Congress for the NSF MREFC account to initiate construction of USArray and SAFOD [5]. The request was denied, and funding for EarthScope development continued through the NSF R&RA account [3].

In the 2001-2006 NSF Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) strategic plan submitted in October 2000, NSF identified the development of “Tools—Broadly accessible, state-of-the-art information bases and shared research and education tools” [6] as one of its three overarching goals. EarthScope was listed as part of the tools-development plan, and it was highlighted as one of two new programs for investment in tools by NSF Director Dr. Rita R. Colwell at the February 7, 2000, FY 2001 NSF budget briefing [7].

On September 6, 2001, Colwell identified EarthScope as one of three top NSF MREFC account priorities [8]. On the following day, she received a letter from the president of the Geological Society of America encouraging NSF to make EarthScope a top-priority MREFC request [9]. In October 2001, at its 365th meeting, the National Science Board (NSB) approved Resolution NSB 01-180 indicating that EarthScope was among the board’s highest priorities. Also in October 2001, the National Research Council

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

published a review of the EarthScope facility development and science program. Conducted at the request of NSF, the review bolstered support for the program. The Research Council found “that EarthScope is an extremely well articulated project that has resulted from consideration by many scientists over several years, in some cases up to decades … The committee conclude[d] that EarthScope will have a substantial impact on earth science in America and worldwide” [10].

On February 4, 2002 the president signed the FY 2003 budget request, including $35 million for the NSF MREFC account for EarthScope. The budget did not include funding for some MREFC projects for which funding had previously been requested. Anticipating a difficult battle with the Senate Appropriations Committee for approval of the EarthScope portion of the budget, the earth-sciences community launched a congressional letter-writing campaign [11]. On February 20, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Omnibus Spending Bill for FY 2003. The bill had been passed by both houses of Congress a week before that and included $30 million for EarthScope [12, 13].

After the March 2002 EarthScope Information Technology Workshop, the EarthScope Information Technology Forum (ESIT) was formed. The ESIT aims include coordinating current EarthScope information technology (IT) developing future EarthScope IT, and standardizing data structures and interfaces [14].

On November 26, 2002, EAR and the earth-sciences community formed the EarthScope Science and Education Committee (ESEC). Pursuant to a recommendation made by the National Research Council (2001), the ESEC will “provide leadership and a central point-of-contact for the major elements of the EarthScope project … [and] serve as a conduit for information between the funding agencies and the scientific communities” [15].

On February 3, 2003, President Bush submitted his FY 2004 budget request, including $45 million for EarthScope [16]. On July 15, 2003, the House Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs [VA], Housing and Urban Development [HUD], and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations’ version of the budget indicated funding for EarthScope below the requested level, at $43.5 million [17].

References

[1] National Research Council. 2001. Review of EarthScope Integrated Science. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

[2] EarthScope history. Available at <dax.geo.arizona.edu/earthscope/about/history.html>.

[3] EarthScope funding profile.

[4] NSF GEO Advisory Committee November 30–December 1, 1999 meeting minutes.

[5] NSF GEO Advisory Committee May 1-2, 2000 meeting minutes.

[6] NSF GPRA Strategic Plan FY 2001–FY 2006, October 3, 2000.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

[7] Remarks by NSF Director Rita Colwell at NSF FY 2001 budget briefing.

[8] Testimony of NSF director before House Committee on Science Subcommittee on Research, September 6, 2001.

[9] Letter from GSA President to NSF Director, September 7, 2001.

[10] National Research Council. Review of EarthScope Integrated Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001.

[11] EarthScope News Release, February 4, 2002.

[12] California Department of Education Federal Update, February 14, 2003.

[13] EarthScope News Release, February 20, 2003.

[14] EarthScope News Release, April 12, 2003.

[15] EarthScope News Release, November 26, 2003.

[16] EarthScope News Release, February 3, 2003.

[17] NSF OLPA Congressional Update, July 15, 2003.

[18] EarthScope past meetings available at <www.earthscope.org/news/past_mtgs.html>.

[19] EarthScope News Release, June 12, 2002.

[20] NSF Progam Solicitation for EarthScope: Science, Education and Related Activities for the USArray, San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD) and Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO), April 17, 2003.

GEMINI OBSERVATORIES

Description

The Gemini Observatory is a new generation of twin optical infrared telescopes that use innovative instruments and new observational and operational approaches. It consists of two 8.1-m telescopes that are sensitive to optical and infrared light. Gemini North sits atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii on a 2-acre site subleased from the University of Hawaii (UH) [1]. Gemini South is at Cerro Pachon in the Chilean Alps on land held by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) [2]. Together, the telescopes provide an unprecedented opportunity for studying the entire northern and southern sky. The project is an international collaboration of seven nations: the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, Chile, Brazil, and Argentina. NSF, which contributes 50 percent of the funding for Gemini, serves as the executive agency for the project. AURA serves as the project’s managing body. The National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) acts as the gateway for US involvement in Gemini. See Table C-3 for a timeline of the major developments. Dedicated in 1999, Gemini North made news with its first data release, providing dramatic images of the galactic center. The project’s construction phase ended in January 2002 with the dedication of Gemini South.

Approval and Funding History

MREFC funding for construction began in FY 1995. Construction was initiated in FY 1991.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-3 Timeline of Major Developments

Before 1992

Gemini operated under directorship of NOAO [3].

Spring 1992

US Gemini involvement under AURA management independent of NOAO [3].

April 16, 1993

AURA board recommends creation of US Gemini Office in NOAO [4].

1993

UK and Canada join United States in providing funding for Gemini [6].

October 6, 1994

Groundbreaking ceremony for Gemini North [15].

October 22, 1994

Groundbreaking ceremony for Gemini South [15].

1995

Creation of MREFC account; Gemini receives $41 million [7].

October 11, 1995

Corning Inc., announces completion of Gemini North primary mirror blank [10].

February 8, 1996

Fred Gillett named International Gemini Project scientist [16].

May 1, 1997

Corning Inc., completes fabrication of Gemini South mirror blank [11].

June 24, 1997

Groundbreaking ceremonies at Hilo Base Facility for Gemini North [12].

July 29, 1997

Chile rejoins Gemini partnership [17].

February 18, 1998

Australia joins Gemini partnership [18].

June 28, 1998

Primary mirror delivered to Mauna Kea site of Gemini North [19].

November 18, 1998

Dedication ceremony for Hilo Base Facility [20].

April 15, 1999

Gemini receives NSF grant for improved Internet access to Gemini North [12].

June 25, 1999

Dedication ceremony for Gemini North [13].

March 17, 2000

Primary mirror delivered to Cerro Pachon site of Gemini South [21].

October 16, 2000

Gemini North penetrates into galactic core with first data release [13].

January 7, 2002

Gemini North data reveal Brown Dwarf orbiting a Sun-like star [22].

January 18, 2002

Dedication ceremony for Gemini South [14].

November 13, 2002

Gemini North named in honor of Fred Gillett [23].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Managing Institutions

The project is governed by the Gemini board, which was established by the Gemini agreement signed by the participating agencies. NSF is the executive agency for the seven-nation partnership and acts on its behalf.

Development Summary

The US Gemini project began under the directorship of the NOAO to “expedite the start-up phase” [3]. In the spring of 1992, because of its international nature, it became an independent project subject to rules different from those set forth for the NOAO by an NSF-AURA collaborative agreement [3]. In April 1993, AURA established a US Gemini Office in the NOAO to act as “the focus for US involvement in the international Gemini project” [4]. In contrast with other NOAO undertakings, however, the US Gemini Office does not operate Gemini; rather, it serves as the avenue for facilitating US research and development related to Gemini [5].

During calendar 1991 and 1992, the United States provided the sole financial contributions to Gemini in an amount totaling $12.1 million [6]. Those funds were allocated from the NSF R&RA account [7]; the MREFC account had not yet been established. UK and Canadian involvement began in 1993, but the United States remained the primary contributor, providing about 60 percent of the funding [6]. In FY 1995, with the establishment of the NSF MREFC account, the United States contributed $41 million to Gemini [6], about one-third of the total MREFC budget [8]. Except for $4 million in FY 1998, all later NSF funding for Gemini operations has been allocated through the R&RA account. US financial involvement exceeded its 50 percent partnership in the early years of the project, but it will be reimbursed by other member countries. All member countries’ contributions will match their proportion of the partnership by 2005 [9].

In October 1994, groundbreaking ceremonies marked the beginning of construction on both the Gemini North and Gemini South telescopes. Poor weather during that Hawaiian winter, however, delayed work on Gemini North, pushing back “first light” for the northern telescope by 5 months [6]. Parallel to the onsite construction, Corning Inc. began manufacture of the 8.1-m primary mirrors; it completed the first blank in October 1995 [10]. The mirror blank for Gemini South was completed in May 1997 [11].

In June 1997, groundbreaking ceremonies took place at UH at Hilo University Park, the site of the sea-level operations for Gemini North. The facility was completed in November 1998. In spring of 1999, Gemini received a $600,000 grant from NSF to increase Internet access to and between Gemini North facilities. Coupled with a $350,000 grant given to

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

UH’s Information Technology Services, the grant allowed high-speed access to Gemini’s large, high-resolution data files and better community outreach via the Internet [12].

The June 1999 dedication of Gemini North ushered in a new era of optical astronomy for a new millennium. The first data release, in October 2000, provided a spectacular glimpse into the core of the Milky Way [13]. The dedication ceremony for Gemini South occurred in January 2002, for the first time allowing complete coverage of the entire sky from an 8-m-class observatory [14]. Since the completion of both telescopes, Gemini data have yielded a steady stream of scientific papers.

References

[1] Gemini public webpage at <http://www.gemini.edu/public/mauna.html>.

[2] Gemini public webpage at <http://www.gemini.edu/public/pachon.html>.

[3] Gemini Project Newsletter, Number 1, March 1992.

[4] NOAO Newsletter No. 34, June 1, 1993.

[5] Gemini Project Newsletter No. 5, June 1993.

[6] The International Gemini Telescopes Annual Report, 1995.

[7] Gemini Funding Profile.

[8] Frontiers, September 1998.

[9] The International Gemini Telescopes Annual Report, 1998, p. 35.

[10] Corning News Release, October 11, 1995.

[11] Corning News Release, May 9, 1997.

[12] Gemini Observatory Press Release, April 15, 1999.

[13] Gemini Observatory Press Release, October 16, 2000.

[14] Gemini Observatory Press Release, December 3, 2001.

[15] Gemini Observatory Press Release, September 30, 1994.

[16] Gemini Observatory Press Release, February 8, 1996.

[17] Letter from NSF staff associate for Gemini, August 29, 1997.

[18] Gemini Observatory Press Release, February 18, 1998.

[19] Gemini Observatory Press Release, June 29, 1998.

[20] Gemini Observatory Press Release, November 18, 1998.

[21] Gemini Observatory Press Release, March 20, 2000.

[22] Gemini Observatory Press Release, January 7, 2002.

[23] Gemini Observatory Press Release, November 13, 2002.

HIAPER (HIGH-PERFORMANCE INSTRUMENTED AIRBORNE PLATFORM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH)

Description

HIAPER is a jet aircraft with unique high-altitude and advanced payload research capabilities. It is used for research on Earth systems, including atmospheric and weather research, on regional and planetary scales. HIAPER is a middle-size jet research aircraft capable of carrying up to

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

6,000 lb of payload to an altitude of 51,000 ft with a range of 6,000 nautical miles. Those features will enable atmospheric studies in and near the tropopause and allow for long-range studies of coastlines and borders. The MREFC portion of the project involves acquisition and modification of a Gulfstream GV airframe and the development of advanced instrumentation that will match platform capabilities and scientific needs. The changes made to the airframe include installing hard points under the wings for carrying pods or sensors, optical ports for remote-sensing equipment, and additional hard points for attaching various other apparatus to the aircraft. In addition, this GV will differ from those commercially available for private use in having a much sparser interior to allow for more instrumentation and advanced cyberinfrastructure to support the needs of researchers. In providing a state-of-the-art facility for airborne atmospheric studies, HIAPER heralds unprecedented advances in the field.

Approval and Funding History

Approved in August 1998, MREFC funding for HIAPER began in FY 2000. It included support for planning, design, and development and for acquisition and modification of the airframe. NSF’s FY 2002 budget request did not include MREFC funding for HIAPER. The House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations added $35 million for HIAPER; this funding was retained in the final spending bill for FY 2002. The final $25.536 million for HIAPER construction was appropriated in FY 2003.

Managing Institutions

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), operated by the 69-member university consortium called the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), and NSF acquired the HIAPER airframe from Gulfstream Corporation. Lockheed Martin is contracted to modify the aircraft structurally to meet scientific requirements. Once modifications are completed, the NSF-owned aircraft will be operated and maintained by the NCAR Atmospheric Technology Division (ATD).

Development History

The need for a middle-size jet research aircraft was identified and repeatedly reiterated at a series of workshops beginning in 1982. See Table C-4 for a timeline of the major developments. The outcome of meetings in 1982, 1987, and 1992 was nearly unanimous support from NSF-funded scientists for listing the acquisition of such a vehicle for the NSF research-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-4 Timeline of Major Developments

1980s

Workshops identify the need for new HIAPER aircraft [1].

1989

Mid-Sized Jet Review Committee strongly endorses need for new middle-size jet [1].

1997

NSF GEO proposes HIAPER [1].

August 1997

NSB approves HIAPER project development plan [2].

1998

HIAPER receives first R&RA money for concept development [3].

Summer 1998

Survey conducted to obtain input into HIAPER from university community [6].

August 1998

NSB authorizes NSF to seek MREFC funding for HIAPER in FY 2000 [5].

May 24-26, 1999

HIAPER community workshop in Boulder, Colorado [14].

2000

HIAPER receives first MREFC funding.

June 19, 2000

UCAR issues request for proposal to purchase HIAPER aircraft [7].

Fall 2001

Completion of negotiations with Gulfstream for purchase of aircraft; NSB approves resulting deal [8].

December 2001

Contract awarded to Gulfstream for production of HIAPER “green” airframe [8].

June 2002

Completion of airframe and transfer to Lockheed Martin [9].

November 4–6, 2002

HIAPER instrumentation workshop [10].

Early 2003

Preliminary design review for HIAPER modifications [11].

May 14-15, 2003

Technical interchange meeting between Gulfstream and Lockheed Martin HIAPER teams and NCAR and UCAR staff [11].

June 24-26, 2003

Critical design review [12].

aircraft fleet as the highest priority. A 1989 ad hoc committee convened to examine NCAR-prepared reports on the scientific justification of such a project, the Mid-Sized Jet Review Committee, strongly endorsed the need [1]. The specifications identified for such an aircraft at those meetings included payload, altitude, and range, all of which represented vast technologic improvements over the existing research fleet [1].

In light of the continued support for acquiring a new aircraft, the NSF Directorate for the Geosciences (GEO) proposed HIAPER in FY 1997 [1]. The NSB approved the project development plan in August 1997 [2].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

HIAPER received NSF R&RA money during FY 1998 and FY 1999 to fund concept development [3].

In August 1998, the NSB authorized NSF to seek MREFC funding for HIAPER in FY 2000. After that confidence-boosting development, NCAR’s ATD successfully submitted a proposal to carry out HIAPER on NSF’s behalf [4, 5]. During the summer of 1998, a survey of potential users was conducted to elicit input from the university community [6]. In May 1999, a workshop held in Boulder, Colorado, developed more specific requirements for the aircraft.

In June 2000, UCAR issued a request for proposals for the purchase of a HIAPER aircraft [7]. During that year, HIAPER received its first MREFC funding, and additional funding was appropriated in FY 2001. During the ensuing 2 years, Gulfstream was selected as a potential contractor, and terms were negotiated. The negotiations concluded in fall 2001 and received NSB approval. A contract with Gulfstream for the purchase of a GV airframe was signed in December 2001. The FY 2002 MREFC budget included $35 million for the purchase of the aircraft [8].

The airframe was completed and delivered to UCAR in June 2002 [9]. It was then transferred to Lockheed Martin in Greenville, South Carolina, for design and implementation of the modifications necessary to support scientific missions. In November 2002, a workshop was held in Boulder, Colorado, to discuss instrumentation needs for HIAPER [10].

In early 2003, NCAR, UCAR, NSF, and the HIAPER Advisory Committee participated in a preliminary design review in preparation for the June critical design review (CDR) [11]. The CDR revealed “no major surprises,” leaving Lockheed Martin ready to begin making modifications in August 2003 [12]. Modification work on HIAPER is expected to reach completion in Autumn 2004, when the aircraft will be transferred to Boulder, Colorado, for complete testing, interior modification, and deployment of cyberinfrastructure necessary to support future research missions. The first science mission is expected to take place in 2005 [10].

References

[1] Background of the HIAPER Initiative, available at <www.hiaper.ucar.edu>.

[2] Minutes from UCAR Board of Trustees meeting, October 6-7, 1997.

[3] HIAPER funding profile.

[4] UCAR Staff Notes Monthly. HIAPER: A research plane for the 2000s takes shape, November 1998.

[5] UCAR Quarterly. New aircraft is cleared for takeoff, Winter 1998.

[6] UCAR Quarterly. Under construction: the new NSF/NCAR high-altitude jet, Spring 2002.

[7] UCAR RFP No. 18883.

[8] UCAR Staff Notes Monthly. Full speed ahead for new NSF/NCAR high-altitude jet, April 2002.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

[9] What is HIAPER? Available at <www.hiaper.ucar.edu>.

[10] UCAR Quarterly. HIAPER instrument workshop set for November, Fall 2002.

[11] HIAPER Project Office Monthly Update, May 2003.

[12] HIAPER Project Office Monthly Update, July 2003.

[13] Senate Report 108-143, September 2003.

[14] Agenda for HIAPER Community Workshop in Boulder, Colo., May 1999.

ICECUBE

Description

IceCube will be a kilometer-size neutrino detector built in the Antarctic ice. The Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA) and AMANDA-II demonstrated the feasibility of using the clarity and depth of the ice sheet at the South Pole to detect high-energy neutrinos. See Table C-5 for a timeline of the major developments. With a 1-km3 volume sitting almost 2.5 km below the surface, the world’s largest telescope to date will detect neutrinos traveling through the earth’s core from the northern sky with a pointing accuracy of about 1 degree. Building on the state-of-the-art drilling and detector techniques developed for the earlier projects, IceCube will revolutionize the field of particle astrophysics by allowing the detection of PeV-energy neutrinos [1]. Those neutrinos are believed to result from some of the highest-energy processes observed in the universe, such as gamma-ray bursts and active galactic nuclei. The completion of IceCube will enable us to look deeper than ever before into formation processes and other previously opaque cosmic events.

Approval and Funding History

IceCube was approved by the NSB in October 2000 for submission in a future budget request. MREFC funding was first included in the President’s budget request to Congress in FY 2004. However, Congress provided funding for Ice Cube startup activities in FY 2002 and FY 2003 in the amounts of $15 million and $24.7 million, respectively. The FY 2004 NSF budget request to Congress included $60 million for the start of full construction. Both House and Senate markups have included funding for start of construction, albeit at lower levels than the FY 2004 request. (As of this writing, the conference committee has not met, so the FY 2004 appropriation has not been made.) The total cost of the construction, including the startup funding mentioned above, is projected to be $251.6 million. US funding for the project is provided to the University of Wisconsin-Madison and then to subawardee institutions and to the support contractors of NSF’s US Antarctic Program (USAP)-Raytheon Polar

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-5 Timeline of Major Developments

1987

Francis Halzen proposes Antarctic ice as a site for neutrino detector [10].

1992

Construction begins on AMANDA [10].

1996

AMANDA observes atmospheric neutrino candidates [1].

November 1999

IceCube proposal received from University of Wisconsin for full construction funding; mail review takes place in March 2000; no funding action taken.

January 2000

Completion of AMANDA-II [1].

March 2000

Proposal reviewed by NSF-DOE Scientific Assessment Group for Experimental Non-Accelerator Physics.

June 2000

Halzen gives talk at International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy proposing IceCube [1]; NSF conducts full IceCube project baseline review.

October 2000

NSB approves IceCube for inclusion in the FY 2002 or later budget [NSB-00-165].

October 2001

NSF conducts second full IceCube baseline review.

November 6, 2001

House and Senate approve FY 2002 funding of $15 million for IceCube startup activities [2].

December 2001

University of Wisconsin submits proposal for IceCube startup phase in amount of $15 million.

January 2002

HEPAP’s Panel on Long Range Planning endorses IceCube [4].

March 2002

NSB approves award of $15 million for IceCube startup activities.

March 29, 2002

OSTP requests National Research Council study on neutrino projects [6].

December 2002

National Research Council report finds no redundancy between IceCube and underground science laboratory [7].

February 3, 2003

President includes funding for IceCube in FY 2004 budget [8].

February 20, 2003

Omnibus Spending Bill passed by Congress (PL 108-7) provides $24.7 million for continued for IceCube startup work. Because law also provides for recision of 0.65 percent, amount available for IceCube became $24.5 million.

May 28, 2003

NSB approves up to $24.5 million for continuation of IceCube startup activities [9].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

Services Company and the US Air National Guard (for flight services to the South Pole Station).4

Managing Institutions

The work will be undertaken by the IceCube Collaboration, led by the University of Wisconsin (UW). Of the 11 US institutions in the collaboration, 10 are universities and the other is the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The collaboration also includes foreign participants representing three countries—Belgium, Germany, and Sweden—contributing an estimated $40 million toward the cost of construction.

Development History

The 1996 success of AMANDA and completion of AMANDA-II in 2000 demonstrated the feasibility of using Antarctic ice as a neutrino detector. The expandable photomultiplier-tube technology developed for AMANDA helped to pave the way for larger-scale Antarctic detectors. A full proposal for IceCube funding was submitted in November 1999 and was later reviewed for scientific merit and technical readiness. In June 2000, Francis Halzen, the AMANDA principal investigator, gave a talk at the International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy that indicated readiness to begin work on a 1-km3 neutrino detector called IceCube. On the basis of the project’s intellectual merit and state of planning, the NSB in October 2000 approved the inclusion of funding for IceCube construction in the NSF FY 2002 budget request. In 2001, UW continued developmental activities for the project, and NSF conducted a further baseline review.

In November of 2001, the $15 million was included in the joint House-Senate appropriations bill FY 2002 MREFC funding for startup activities associated with the successor IceCube project [2].

In its January 2002 report, the Department of Energy–NSF High-Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) Subpanel on Long Range Planning for High-Energy Physics endorsed IceCube as part of the US high-energy physics roadmap [4]. After the release of the funding in March 2002, the UW-based project began hiring engineers and administrators [5]. Although the president approved the FY 2002 funding for IceCube, concerns regarding the redundancy of various neutrino-detector projects [6] prompted the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to request a study by the National Research Council to review

4  

The USAP facilities include Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, McMurdo Station, Palmer Station, and two research vessels [3].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

neutrino projects that were under way. The White House was concerned about possible overlap of science goals between IceCube and an underground science laboratory [6]. The 2003 National Research Council report found no substantial overlap between the two projects, noting that they enabled essentially different types of neutrino detection. IceCube is optimized to detect high-energy neutrinos, and the underground science laboratory offers a low-background environment for studying lower-energy neutrinos [7].

The key IceCube startup activities include development and production of in-ice devices (the photodetectors at the heart of IceCube), development of an enhanced hot-water drill to drill the 2500-m-deep holes in the ice cap into which the photodetectors will be deployed, and data systems development for acquisition, transmission, archiving, and analysis of the data from the roughly 5,000 distinct photosensors in the IceCube array. Drilling and deployment of the IceCube sensors is expected to take six austral summer seasons; completion is estimated in FY 2010.

The president’s FY 2004 budget included funding for IceCube at the level of $295.2 million through FY 2013 [8]. In May 2003, the NSB approved up to $25 million for UW and the USAP to complete the phase 1 effort to develop the hot-water drill and its associated support equipment and to commence developing a design for the downhole electronics modules that operate the photodetectors.

References

[1] Francis Halzen. High Energy Neutrino Astronomy: Towards Kilometer-Scale Detectors, astro-ph/0103195v1, March 13, 2001.

[2] John Fauber. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 7, 2001.

[3] Funding Profile for IceCube available at <www.nsf.gov>.

[4] DOE/NSF HEPAP Subpanel on LRP for US HEP report. The Science Ahead: The Way to Discovery, Particle Physics in the 21st Century, January 28, 2002.

[5] Ernie Mastroianni. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 1, 2001.

[6] Nature 417:5, May 2, 2002.

[7] National Research Council. Neutrinos and Beyond: New Windows on Nature. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2003.

[8] IceCube Press Update dated August 7, 2003, available at <icecube.wisc.edu>.

[9] NSF Media Advisory (NSB 03-77), May 28, 2003.

[10] The Baltimore Sun, July 21, 2003.

IODP (INTEGRATED OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM)

Description

The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) will be a multivessel, multinational project to drill and take cores in oceanic settings to “inves-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

tigate a wide range of earth system processes” [1]. See Table C-6 for a timeline of the major developments. A successor to the single-vessel, 18-year, international Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), the IODP will take advantage of new technologies to enable a variety of ocean-drilling studies. The current project plan entails two ships funded by the United States and Japan. The Japanese contribution will be a riser ship, named Chikyu, capable of drilling to 7 km below the seafloor in 4-km-deep waters, far enough to reach the earth’s mantle. The US ship will be similar to the existing ODP vessel but with “significantly enhanced coring and drilling capabilities” [2]. European countries have expressed interest in providing smaller, mission-specific platforms (MSPs) for the IODP. Beyond the construction phase, the IODP will enable further cooperation in international ocean-drilling research. The annual operating costs will be shared by member countries that pay for “IODP participation units.” The United States and Japan will each pay for one-third of the units, and the remaining one-third will be divided among member countries. Each unit of participation provides the member country with representation on drilling cruises and the science advisory panel [2]. MSP and nonriser operations are scheduled to begin in 2004, and riser and nonriser operations are scheduled to start in late 2006.

Approval and Funding History

The IODP has not yet received MREFC funding. It was included in the NSF FY 2004 budget proposal as an out-year request for funding in FY 2005.

Managing Institutions

The project is managed through a memorandum of cooperation between NSF and the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). NSF has entered into a contract with Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc. (JOI), a 10-institution nonprofit consortium for management and operations of the nonriser vessel.

Development Summary

The IODP builds on 35 years of successful scientific ocean drilling that began with the 15-year Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) initiated in 1968 [1, 3]. After the retirement of the DSDP vessel Glomar Challenger, the US drill ship JOIDES Resolution set sail to inaugurate the ODP in January 1985 [4]. The ODP, an NSF project funded through JOI, was an international endeavor ultimately involving scientists from over 20 nations [5].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-6 Timeline of Major Developments

1968

Glomar Challenger sets sail for the Deep Sea Drilling Project [3].

January 22, 1985

JOIDES Resolution sets sail for the Ocean Drilling Project [4].

1993

US Committee to Consider Post-1998 Scientific Ocean Drilling (COMPOST-I) report [8].

1996

Ocean Drilling Program Long Range Planning Committee report [8].

Early 1997

NSF requests USSAC study to assess degree of US commitment to ocean drilling beyond 2003 [8].

February 16-17, 1997

US Committee to Consider Post-2003 Scientific Ocean Drilling (COMPOST-II) meets at University of Miami [8].

March 6-7, 1997

Review of COMPOST-II draft report [8].

Mid 1997

Conference on Cooperative Ocean Riser Drilling in Tokyo, Japan [9].

1999

Formation of IODP Planning Subcommittee [10].

May 26-29, 1999

Conference on Multiple Platform Exploration in Vancouver, Canada [10, 11].

1999

Formation of USSAC Conceptual Design Committee [10].

March 2000

Delivery of Conceptual Design Committee report to NSF [13].

July 12, 2001

NSF director testifies at hearing on ocean exploration and ocean observatories before House Committees on Resources and Science [5].

September 2001

JOI/USSAC report on US participation in IODP [14].

January 18, 2002

Chikyu launching ceremony and announcement of UK participation in IODP [15].

June 12-14, 2002

Conference on US participation in IODP held in Washington, D.C. [1].

2003

IODP included in out-year MREFC funding request for FY 2005 in NSF budget proposal.

March 19, 2003

NSF solicits US contractor to manage scientific and drilling operations of nonriser vessel [17].

April 22, 2003

United States and Japan sign memorandum of cooperation for IODP [17].

August 4, 2003

NSF issues solicitation for US science-support program associated with IODP [18].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

The ODP is overseen by JOI for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES). Originally planned as a 10-year project, the JOIDES Resolution set sail on its final leg in July 2003 after 18 years of successful operations. The IODP is scheduled to begin the next phase of scientific ocean drilling on October 1, 2003 [6].

In 1997, pending the scheduled completion of the ODP, NSF requested a study from the US Science Advisory Committee (USSAC) to “assess the degree of US commitment to scientific ocean drilling beyond 2003” [7]. The USSAC then formed the US Committee to Consider Post-2003 Scientific Ocean Drilling (COMPOST-II), the successor to COMPOST-I, formed in 1993 to consider post-1998 scientific drilling [7, 8]. Drawing on the 1993 National Research Council report Solid-Earth Sciences and Society and the 1996 ODP Long Range Planning Committee report, COMPOST-II made six recommendations affirming “its commitment to a new international scientific ocean drilling program post-2003” [8]. The report endorsed many of the elements incorporated in the IODP, including the multi-platform approach. IODP appeared as a working title for the project in 1997.

In July 1997, during the Conference on Cooperative Ocean Riser Drilling held in Tokyo, Japan, 150 scientists and engineers met to discuss scientific study enabled by a riser-equipped drilling vessel. Their recommendations were sent to the International Working Group for the IODP (IWG/IODP), cochaired by officials of NSF and the Japanese Science and Technology Agency [9].

Planning on the IODP continued to move quickly through the late 1990s. An IODP Planning Subcommittee (IPSC) of JOIDES was formed in 1999 [10]. In May of that year, the Conference on Multiple Platform Exploration (COMPLEX), held in Vancouver, Canada, drew over 350 participants [10, 11]. COMPLEX set out to “define the ‘intellectual challenges’ of the post-2003 scientific ocean drilling program” [12]. The results of the conference laid out an ambitious scientific agenda for nonriser drilling research and helped to form the basis of recommendations on the nonriser IODP vessel. NSF’s charging the USSAC with the conceptual-design task for the nonriser drill ship led to the formation of the USSAC Conceptual Design Committee [10]. By spring 2000, the conceptual-design report was delivered to NSF. By then, NSF had made clear its intention to make an award to acquire and modify or convert a nonriser drill ship in October 2003 if funds were available [13]. Funding for the IODP at sub-million-dollar levels from the NSF R&RA account began in FY 2000.

In July 2001, at a hearing before the House Committees on Resources and Science, NSF Director Rita R. Colwell discussed the IODP as the “future phase of scientific drilling” [5]. In September of that year, the JOI/USSAC published Understanding Our Planet Through Ocean Drilling:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

A Report from the United States Science Advisory Committee, which made the case for US participation in the IODP [1]. A shorter version of the report intended for a wider audience, United States Participation in the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program 2003-2013, endorsed US participation in the IODP to “ensure that the best science is pursued, innovation is incorporated, technical operations run smoothly, and scientific exploration culminates in synthesis and integration” [14, 1].

In January 2002, a launching ceremony was held for Chikyu, the Japanese riser drill ship. At the ceremony, NSF Deputy Director Joseph Bordogna announced UK support for the IODP and anticipated the coming formal agreements between the United States and Japan on its management [15].

To provide background for a written recommendation to NSF regarding the IODP, a conference on US participation was held in June 2002. The conference examined management and structural strategies for the US component of the IODP [1]. That fall, the NSF Division of Ocean Sciences reported “the expectation that the long-term responsibility for ODP scientific and physical assets will be transferred to appropriate contractors and organizations in the planned follow-on program, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) as it is developed and implemented” [16].

On April 22, 2003, NSF and MEXT signed a formal memorandum of cooperation for the IODP. A month before the signing, NSF issued an NSB-approved solicitation for a US contractor to manage the scientific and drilling operations of the US nonriser vessel. Contract negotiations were expected to be completed in August 2003 [17]. Also in August, NSF issued a solicitation for “a qualified provider to facilitate and enhance the participation of the US scientific community in all aspects of IODP” [18]. The IODP was included in the NSF FY 2004 budget as an out-year request for MREFC funding in FY 2005.

References

[1] John Farrell. IODP Planning Status. JOI/USSAC Newsletter, Summer 2002.

[2] JOI/USSAC report. United States Participation in the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, September 2001.

[3] Kasey White. ODP: International Earth Science. Geotimes, August 2001.

[4] Ocean Drilling Program News Release, January 22, 1985.

[5] Testimony of Rita R. Colwell, NSF director, before the House Committees on Resources and Science at Hearing on Ocean Exploration and Ocean Observatories, July 12, 2001.

[6] Ocean Drilling Program News Release, Leg 210, Summer 2003.

[7] NSF OCE Newsletter, Spring 1998.

[8] COMPOST-II Report. A New Vision for Scientific Ocean Drilling, 1997.

[9] NSF OCE Newsletter, Fall 1997.

[10] NSF OCE Newsletter, Fall 1999.

[11] COMPLEX Report, May 1999.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

[12] <http://www.oceandrilling.org/COMPLEX/Default.html>.

[13] NSF OCE Newsletter, Spring 2000.

[14] JOI/USSAC Report. United States Participation in the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, September 2001.

[15] NSF OLPA release of Dr. Bordogna’s remarks at Chikyu launching ceremony in Kobe, Japan, January 18, 2002.

[16] NSF OCE Newsletter, Fall 2002.

[17] NSF Press Release (NSF PR 03-41), April 22, 2003.

[18] Program Solicitation (NSF 03-586) US Science Support Program Associated with the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (USSSP-IODP), August 4, 2003.

LHC (LARGE HADRON COLLIDER)

Description

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be the world’s highest-energy accelerator facility. The United States is involved in construction of the LHC accelerator and two particle detectors, ATLAS and CMS. The LHC is a high-energy particle-physics facility designed to collide protons at teravolt (TeV) energies. The LHC, in Geneva at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN), is one of the largest international scientific enterprises yet undertaken. LHC participants include the 20 member states of CERN,5 the United States, Canada, India, Russia, Japan, and physicists of many other countries. Designed to fit inside the tunnel constructed for CERN’s Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP), the LHC heralds a new age in high-energy physics. By providing a 10-fold increase in energy and a 1,000-fold increase in intensity over current colliders, the LHC will enable scientists “to study the collisions of the tiny quarks locked deep inside protons [1],” an order of magnitude smaller than has been studied until now. Over 1,000 superconducting magnets, cooled to temperatures below that of outer space and sustaining a magnetic field more than 16,000 times that of Earth, will accelerate the protons to the necessary energies [1]. In addition to the magnets, precision detectors able to withstand high levels of radiation must be developed and built to “observe” the collision products. Two large detectors—a toroidal LHC apparatus (ATLAS) and the compact muon solenoid (CMS)—are key elements of the LHC project and involve the collaborative efforts of more than 4,000 people in 45 countries [1]. The funding for US participation in the LHC comes from two sources: the Department of Energy (DOE) and NSF. DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-

5  

Member states of CERN: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and UK.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

tory, and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory will carry out the US role in magnet design and manufacture. DOE and NSF funds will contribute to ATLAS and CMS, efforts that involve more than 550 scientists at nearly 60 universities and six DOE national laboratories [1].

Approval and Funding History

Construction began with MREFC support in FY 1999.

Managing Institutions

The LHC is an international project under construction at the CERN Laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. NSF has awarded grants to Northeastern University and Columbia University under cooperative agreements, with subcontracts to over 50 US universities. A total of 34 international funding agencies participate in the ATLAS detector project and 31 in the CMS detector project.

Development Summary

Discussions about the LEP began in the late 1970s. See Table C-7 for a timeline of the major developments. Because of the high cost of excavating the LEP tunnel, scientists at CERN decided to begin looking into possible next-generation accelerators to replace LEP at the same site. A 1984 joint European Committee for Future Accelerators (ECFA) and CERN workshop recommended exploring the TeV range for future colliders. The following year saw the formation of the CERN Long Range Planning Committee, which recommended installing a multi-TeV facility in the tunnel after the completion of the LEP program. Development of a proposal for such a facility continued throughout the late 1980s and resulted in a plan approved by the CERN Scientific Policy Committee in 1990 [2].

In late 1991, the CERN Council agreed in a unanimous decision that the LHC was “the right machine for the further significant advance in the field of high energy physics research and for the future of CERN” [3]. The Council then asked for a full technical, scientific, and financial proposal by 1993. The LHC External Review Committee endorsed the resulting proposal in December 1993 [2]. The Council, however, determined that the cost associated with meeting the target completion date of 2002 exceeded the CERN budget. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of seeking contributions from nonmember states [2].

In the United States, 1993 saw another important event in the history of particle physics: the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project by Congress. The SSC had represented the future of US

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-7 Timeline of Major Developments

1977

Preparatory discussions for LEP raise possibility of next-generation collider [2].

March 1984

ECFA-CERN workshop recommends exploring TeV-range facility [2].

1985

CERN Long Range Planning Committee proposes installing 1-TeV facility in LEP tunnel after project’s completion [2].

June 1990

CERN Scientific Policy Committee endorses proposal for 1-TeV facility [2].

Late 1990

ECFA backs 1-TeV facility proposal [2].

December 1991

CERN Council approves pursuing LHC and requests full proposal by 1993 [3].

October 1993

Cancellation of US SSC project; subpanel of HEPAP formed to examine future options for US high-energy physics [4].

December 1993

LHC External Review Committee endorses LHC proposal [2].

December 17, 1993

CERN Council hears proposal and costs for LHC and encourages contributions from nonmember states [2].

May 23, 1994

US subpanel recommends participation in LHC [4].

July 1994

Secretary of Energy recommends US participation in LHC to Congress [4].

1994

Canada and Japan consider entry into LHC [4].

December 16, 1994

CERN Council approves two-stage plan for LHC with possibility of expediting project with outside contributions [5].

May 10, 1995

Japan announces 5-billion-yen contribution to LHC accelerator [6].

December 15, 1995

CERN director general announces that ATLAS and CMS have passed peer review and are pending approval [7].

1996

Canada contributes Can $30 million to LHC accelerator [8].

1996

NSF funds development work for LHC through R&RA account [10].

January 8-9, 1996

CERN director general leads delegation to Washington, D.C., to begin negotiations for US involvement in LHC [7, 8].

March 1996

India contributes US $12.5 million to LHC [8].

June 1996

Russia contributes 67 million Swiss francs to LHC [8].

July 1996

United States announces tentative plans to contribute $531 million to LHC accelerator and detectors [9].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

August 1996

CERN member states propose reduced contributions to annual budget [8].

December 20, 1996

CERN Council decides to pursue LHC as single-stage project to be completed in 2005; Council decides to reduce contributions from member states without altering LHC budget; Japan announces second contribution of 3.85 billion yen to LHC accelerator [8].

May 15, 1997

Chairman of House Committee on Science notes progress toward addressing his concerns with DOE’s proposal for LHC appropriations [11].

December 8, 1997

United States signs agreement to contribute $531 million to LHC accelerator and detectors [12].

May 7, 1998

NSB approves NSF participation in LHC [17].

May 18, 1998

Japan contributes additional 5 billion yen to LHC accelerator.

August 8, 1998

French government approves commencement of LHC civil engineering [13].

1999

First year of NSF MREFC funding for LHC [10].

December 13, 1999

NSF and DOE sign memorandum of understanding outlining US management role in LHC [18].

November 8, 2000

LEP shuts down, making way for LHC [19].

January 21, 2003

US delivers first components for LHC [15].

June 20, 2003

CERN Council confirms schedule for LHC start in 2007 [16].

particle physics, and its cancellation led to the formation of a subpanel of the US High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) charged with examining the possibility of international particle-physics collaborations. The subpanel’s report, released in May 1994, recommended that the United States join the LHC project with a potential contribution of about $400 million for the LHC accelerator and detectors. Those recommendations were taken to Congress in July 1994. During this time, Canada and Japan also began considering entry into the LHC project [4].

After deliberating costs and schedules, the CERN Council approved construction of the LHC in December 1994. Outside contributions had not yet been secured, but the Council decided on a two-stage construction process to be completed in 2008 using only funds from member states. The resolution also noted that CERN welcomed contributions from non-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

member states toward the LHC and would re-examine the possibility of a single-stage project if sufficient funds materialized [5].

Once CERN had announced its definite intention to proceed with the LHC, Japan promised a contribution of 5 billion yen to the LHC accelerator in May 1995 [6]. During January 1996, CERN’s director general led a delegation to Washington, D.C., to begin negotiations concerning a US role in the LHC project [7, 8]. In July 1996, NSF announced tentative plans, subject to congressional approval, for US involvement in the LHC project totaling $531 million, with $81 million to come from NSF [14]. During that year, CERN reached agreements for contributions to the LHC from India, Russia, and Canada [8], and NSF began funding LHC-related development through its R&RA account [10]. With the influx of outside funding, the CERN Council decided to proceed with the single-stage plan for the LHC [8].

During the annual CERN Council meeting in December 1996, member states decided to reduce their annual contributions to CERN, although the director general said that this would not alter the amount of resources devoted to the LHC [8]. The reduction in funds, along with concerns about the US management role in the project, raised objections in Congress. DOE began working with the House Committee on Science to rectify those issues [11]. US officials signed an agreement with CERN in December 1997, promising to contribute $531 million to the LHC project, of which $81 million would come from the NSF MREFC account for ATLAS and CMS [12]. Civil-engineering work for the LHC began in the following summer [13].

NSF MREFC funds were assigned to the LHC from FY 1999 to FY 2003 [10]. The LEP project reached completion in 2000 [14]. In 2003, the United States delivered its first piece of hardware to Geneva, one of 20 25-ton superconducting magnets to be built at BNL [15]. The LHC is on schedule to begin full operations in April 2007 [16].

References

[1] CERN Press Release (PR07.97), August 12, 1997.

[2] CERN Press Release (PR08.94), The Large Hadron Collider, June 17, 1994.

[3] CERN Press Release (PR12.93), December 17, 1993.

[4] CERN Press Release (PR06.94), LHC, A World Project, June 17, 1994.

[5] CERN Press Release (PR16.94), December 16, 1994.

[6] CERN Press Release (PR05.95), May 12, 1995.

[7] CERN Press Release (PR11.95), December 15, 1995.

[8] CERN Press Release (PR09.96), December 20, 1996.

[9] Frontiers: NSF Electronic Newsletter, July/August 1996.

[10] Large Hadron Collider Funding Profile.

[11] NSF Office of Legislative and Public Affairs Congressional Update, May 15, 1997.

[12] CERN Press Release (PR07.97), December 8, 1997.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

[13] CERN Press Release (PR04.98), August 10, 1998.

[14] CERN Press Release (PR17.00), December 15, 2000.

[15] CERN Press Release (PR01.03), January 21, 2003.

[16] CERN Press Release (PR08.03), June 20, 2003.

[17] Approved Minutes of 342nd NSB Meeting (NSB 97-96), May 7, 1998.

[18] NSF OLPA News Tip, December 20, 1999.

[19] CERN Press Release (PR14.00), November 8, 2000.

[20] CERN Press Release (PR02.98), May 18, 1998.

LIGO (LASER INTERFEROMETER GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE OBSERVATORY)

Description

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) comprises two sites: one in Livingston, Louisiana, and one in Hanford, Washington. Both sites have L-shaped Michelson interferometers, with 4-km arms, that are designed to detect the extremely tiny (10–19 m) differential stretching of space caused by the passage of gravitational waves (GWs) (the Hanford site also has a second interferometer with 2-km arms housed in the same structure). Because the effect is expected to be so small, two geographically separated sites are necessary to eliminate local sources of noise that can mimic a GW signal. Bona fide signals must have common characteristics in all three interferometers and be observed nearly simultaneously at both sites. If successful, LIGO could open a new avenue of astronomy: GW astronomy. Several foreign groups are working on similar, but smaller, observatories. Collaborative data sharing between LIGO and the other groups will allow refinements in the identification of GW signals and enhance the precision with which astrophysical sources can be identified.

Approval and Funding History

Construction began in FY 1992 and was supported by R&RA funds from the NSF Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS). MREFC funding of construction began in FY 1994. Civil construction was completed in FY 1998. LIGO was commissioned in FY 2001 and began scientific operations in FY 2002.

Managing Institutions

LIGO is managed by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) under a cooperative agreement with NSF. A memorandum of understanding with Caltech makes the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

(MIT) a full partner in the design, construction, and operation of the LIGO facilities.

Development Summary

The concept of detecting GWs with laser interferometers was first developed in the 1960s. Table C-8 presents a timeline of the major developments. The work of Rainer Weiss (MIT), Ronald Drever (University of Glasgow, UK), and Kip Thorne (Caltech) in the 1960s and 1970s was of particular importance for the development of LIGO. Weiss demonstrated a laser interferometer in 1967 and conceived of using it for GW detection. Using military funding, he began construction of a 1.5-m prototype at MIT. Drever, with James Hough, began constructing a 10-m prototype interferometer in 1975 at Glasgow. In 1968, Thorne began a theoretical effort to study GWs and their sources. After being convinced that GWs could be detected, he prompted Caltech to initiate an experimental effort in 1978. Drever took the lead of Caltech’s experimental effort in 1979, splitting his time evenly between Caltech and Glasgow.

In 1975, NSF began providing funds to MIT to continue work on the 1.5-m prototype interferometer. In 1979, after a review by an NSF subcommittee under R. Deslattes of the work of MIT and Caltech, the NSF Physics Division Advisory Committee endorsed the concept of a GW interferometer. In 1980, NSF provided funds to MIT to complete the 1.5-m prototype interferometer and a technical site and cost study of a large-baseline interferometer. It also funded a 40-m prototype interferometer, which Drever and Stan Whitcomb began constructing at Caltech in 1981. The Caltech interferometer began running in July 1982 and became a testbed for the future LIGO design. In 1983, the MIT study concluded that it would be technologically feasible for a 1-km-scale interferometer to detect GWs. Under pressure from NSF, which did not want to fund two separate GW projects, Caltech and MIT joined forces in 1983 to create plans for the LIGO project. Under their agreement, Caltech had the lead administrative role, but the LIGO Steering Committee consisted of three partners: Weiss, Thorne, and Drever (at Caltech).

Late in 1983, Caltech and MIT scientists made a joint presentation to the NSF Physics Advisory Committee. The committee gave LIGO second priority after improvements at the Cornell Synchrotron. In 1984, a memorandum of understanding was signed between Caltech and MIT for joint design and construction of LIGO. Frank Schutz (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL) was appointed project manager and initiated studies of possible sites for LIGO’s two interferometer facilities. In March 1984, the LIGO Steering Committee made a presentation to NSB.

In 1986, the International Society of General Relativity and Gravita-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-8 Timeline of Major Developments

1960

Joseph Weber initiates work on GW detectors by using narrow-band acoustic bars at University of Maryland [16].

1962

Gertsenshtein and Pustovoit (G&P) in USSR conceive basic idea of laser interferometer GW detector (Soviet Physics – JETP, 14, 84) [16].

Late 1960s-1972

Weber, independently of G&P, suggests interferometer detector to Robert Forward at Hughes Aircraft; Forward, with Moss and Miller at Hughes, builds prototype interferometer and runs it as readout for GW detector [16].

1967-mid 1970s

In 1967, Rainer Weiss (MIT) demonstrates photon-shot noise-limited laser interferometer; independently of other groups, Weiss conceives idea of interferometer’s use for GW detection and initiates detailed analysis of it and developmental research; in 1972, he publishes his analysis, identifying all fundamental noise sources that such an interferometer must face, and conceives ways to deal with them8; he initiates construction of 1.5-m prototype; all this is done with military funding but is terminated by Mansfield Amendment before prototype is operational [16].

1973

Hans Billing, having worked on Weber-type bar detectors, initiates interferometer development at Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany; this research program ultimately leads in 1990s to German component of GEO600 project and in 2000s to German contribution to Advanced LIGO [16].

1975

NSF begins funding work of Rainer Weiss at MIT; Ronald Drever and James Hough, having worked on Weber-type bar detectors, initiate interferometer development at University of Glasgow, UK; they begin construction of 10-m prototype interferometer [16].

1968-79

Kip Thorne in 1968 creates theoretical effort on GWs and their sources at Caltech and, convinced that GW detection will succeed, triggers Caltech in 1978 to initiate experimental GW research; in 1979, Drever accepts offer to lead Caltech’s experimental effort and splits his time between Caltech and Glasgow (until 1984, when he moves full-time to Caltech) [16].

April 1979 [1, 4]

NSF Division of Physics Advisory Committee (triggered by Weiss’s MIT work and Drever’s new program at Caltech) endorses concept of GW interferometer [7, 16].

8  

Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, 105, 54.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

1980

NSF funds completion of MIT’s 1.5-m prototype interferometer [16]; NSF funds MIT for technical, site, and cost study of large-baseline interferometer system (Paul Linsay, Peter Saulson, Rainer Weiss), which is planned to be basis of multiuniversity consortium proposal to NSF [16]; NSF funds construction of 40-m prototype interferometer at Caltech [16].

1981

Ron Drever and Stan Whitcomb initiate construction of 40-m prototype interferometer [16].

June 1982 [16]

40-m interferometer achieves first lock, becoming (like Glasgow, Garching, and MIT prototype interferometers) a testbed for future large-baseline LIGO and GEO interferometers.

1983

MIT study is completed (with input from Arthur D. Little and Stone & Webster Engineering Corp) and concludes that 1-km-scale interferometers with adequate sensitivity to detect cosmic GWs are technologically feasible [4, 16]; under pressure from NSF, which was concerned about available manpower, Caltech (Drever, Thorne) agrees to join forces with MIT (Weiss) to create LIGO project for constructing two 1-km interferometer facilities; plans for LIGO are based on results of MIT study and on experimental work at Caltech, MIT, Glasgow, and Garching; Caltech takes lead administrative role in LIGO; LIGO Steering Committee (Drever, Thorne, and Weiss) is formed [4, 7, 16].

Late 1983

Caltech and MIT make joint presentation to NSF Division of Physics Advisory committee, which ranks LIGO second to improvements at Cornell Synchrotron and above University of Illinois Microtron [16].

1984

Memorandum of understanding between Caltech and MIT for joint design and construction of LIGO; project manager (Frank Schutz, JPL) is appointed and initiates studies of possible sites for LIGO’s two interferometer facilities [16].

March 1984 [1, 16]

Steering Committee presentation to NSB enables NSF (Isaacson, Bardon) to encourage Caltech and MIT to submit proposal for final design study for LIGO.

November 1984 [1]

NSB approves development plan for LIGO.

December 1984 [16]

Caltech and MIT jointly submit proposal to NSF for final design study for LIGO; proposal is turned down largely for financial reasons.

1985

Caltech and MIT submit revised proposal for final design study; proposal is turned down, this time both for financial reasons and because some referees do not deem project ready for final design study [16].

1986

National Research Council Physics Survey endorses LIGO [8].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

November 1986 [1,16]

NSF (Marcel Bardon) appoints blue-ribbon panel to examine LIGO’s scientific case, technical feasibility, management plan, and costing; panel, cochaired by Boyce McDaniel (Cornell) and Andrew Sessler (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), includes university and industrial scientists and engineers, among them Garwin; after week-long review, panel enthusiastically endorses LIGO’s scientific case and technical feasibility but not its management; panel insists that LIGO Steering Committee (which was unable to make technical decisions on rapid timescales required for large project) be replaced by single director. [4, 7].

1987

LIGO Steering Committee gives strong support to UK and Germany to build 3-km equilateral-triangle interferometer detector in Bavaria; this project becomes mired in costs of unification of Germany but is predecessor of current GEO600 in Hanover.

June 1987 [1]

Rochus Vogt (Caltech) is appointed LIGO project director and principal investigator [3, 7, 13], and LIGO Steering Committee is disbanded [16].

December 1987 [16]

Caltech and MIT submit joint proposal under Vogt’s leadership for 3 years of R&D, which will lead to submission of LIGO construction proposal.

February 1988 [1]

NSF review by panel of experts and site visit.

1988

LIGO R&D proposal is funded.

October 1988 [1]

Presentations on LIGO to NSF’s Division of Physics and Division of Astronomy Advisory Committees.

December 1989 [1, 7, 16]

Caltech and MIT, under Vogt’s leadership, submit LIGO construction proposal to NSF [15].

February 1990 [1]

NSF review of LIGO construction proposal and site visit.

April 1990 [1]

NSB approves LIGO construction proposal.

Fall 1990

NSF requests and Congress rejects LIGO construction funding for FY 1991 [3, 7].

November 1990

NSB approves site-selection process.

April 1991 [6]

Hearing on LIGO before House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology—witnesses Vogt (LIGO), Clifford M. Will (McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences, Washington University), and Tyson (AT&T Bell Labs); Will is strongly supportive; Tyson is not [16].

April 1991 [5]

Caltech announces list of 18 proposed sites for LIGO.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

May 1991 [9]

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) notes that LIGO is absent from National Academy of Sciences Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey report; Bahcall explains that it is in NAS Physics Survey.

Fall 1991

Congress approves first year of funding for LIGO ($23 million) [2].

Winter 1991

Congress funds LIGO for first year [2].

November 1991[1]

NSF review by panel of experts validates site-evaluation process; comprehensive evaluation of all sites sent to NSF.

February 1992 [2, 10]

NSF announces selection of two sites: Hanford and Livingston.

May 1992 [1]

Cooperative agreement is signed by Caltech and NSF.

July 6 1992 [10]

LIGO is restructured with Drever no longer a direct participant.

November 1992 [1]

NSF review by panel of experts recommends “dedicated” NSF program manager.

February 1993 [1]

David Berley is appointed NSF program manager for LIGO.

April 1993 [1]

Berley forms LIGO Coordinating Group.

June 1993 [1]

NSF review by panel of experts supports NSF concerns about LIGO project management.

December 1993 [11]

NSF freezes spending on construction-related contract until Vogt comes up with acceptable management plan, including how to accommodate outside scientists.

January 1994 [11]

Congress, citing NSF’s management concerns with LIGO, tells NSF to cut $8 million from LIGO budget.

January 1994 [1, 11, 16]

After consultation with relevant NSF personnel, with LIGO’s scientific leaders, and with MIT’s president, president of Caltech reaches decision to replace LIGO Director Vogt.

February 1994 [1, 11]

Barry Barish (Caltech, formerly with SSC) is appointed laboratory director by president of Caltech in consultation with NSF and MIT [16]; he hires Gary Sanders (formerly with SSC) as project manager [13].

June 1994 [1]

NSF LIGO cost review by expert panel, which recommends that LIGO increase contingency.

July 1994 [1, 2]

Groundbreaking at Hanford.

November 1994 [1]

Project-management plan approved by NSF.

July 1995 [2]

Groundbreaking at Livingston.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

October 1996 [1]

NSF review panel recommends formation of LIGO Scientific Collaboration; LIGO laboratory director selects R. Weiss as first spokesperson of LIGO Scientific Collaboration [14].

August 1997 [14]

First meeting of LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

November 1999 [2]

LIGO inauguration ceremony.

August 2002 [2]

First scientific operation of all three interferometers.

tion endorsed LIGO. Shortly afterward, Marcel Bardon (NSF) appointed a blue-ribbon panel to examine LIGO’s scientific justification, technical feasibility, management plan, and budget. The panel, chaired by Boyce McDaniel (Cornell) and Andrew Sessler (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), included university and industrial scientists and engineers, among them Richard Garwin. After a week-long review, the panel enthusiastically endorsed LIGO’s scientific justification and technical feasibility but not its management plan. The panel insisted that a single director replace the LIGO Steering Committee. Also in 1986, the National Research Council Physics Survey endorsed LIGO. In July 1987, Rochus Vogt (Caltech) was appointed project director and principal investigator, and the LIGO Steering Committee was disbanded.

Under Vogt’s leadership, Caltech and MIT received 3 years of R&D funding beginning in 1988; that led to the submission of a LIGO construction proposal to NSF in December 1989. The proposal received NSB approval. LIGO was included in the FY 1991 budget request, but the funding was denied in Fall 1990. In May 1991, during discussions of amendments to the NSF Authorization Act, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) noted the absence of LIGO in the NRC Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Report. Ultimately, Congress approved first-year funding for LIGO in the fall of 1991. In February 1992, NSF announced the selection of Hanford and Livingston6 as the two LIGO sites.

Over the next 2 years, LIGO and NSF faced several management and organizational issues. In May 1992, Caltech and NSF signed a cooperative agreement. In February 1993, after a recommendation by a panel of experts to form a “dedicated” LIGO management position in NSF, David

6  

Hanford was in the district of the speaker of the House, Tom Foley (D-WA), and Livingston was in the state of Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA), who sat on the Senate committee that appropriates money for NSF.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

Berley was appointed program manager for LIGO, and the LIGO Coordinating Group (LCG) was created.7 NSF, in carrying out its oversight responsibilities, expressed serious concern that the LIGO project needed to be restructured before it could effectively move forward. That concern was shared by Congress. In December 1993, NSF froze spending on a construction-related contract pending submission of an acceptable management plan that included how to accommodate outside scientists. Congress, after briefing by NSF staff, requested that NSF delay $8 million from the LIGO budget in January 1994. As a consequence of NSF’s concern and congressional intervention, the management structure of LIGO was reconstituted in February 1994 with Barry Barish (Caltech) as new principal investigator and Gary Sanders (Caltech) as new project manager. By the end of the year, with new management in place and a satisfactory project-management plan approved by NSF, construction began. In November 1994, LIGO’s new management presented revised costs for strengthening project management to the NSB, which approved the increase.

In 1997, as LIGO neared the end of its construction phase, two organizational institutions were formed [14]: LIGO Laboratory and LIGO Scientific Collaboration. LIGO Laboratory consists of the facilities supported by NSF under LIGO Operations and Advanced R&D; this includes administration of the LIGO detector facilities and the support and test facilities at Caltech, MIT, Hanford, and Livingston.

LIGO Scientific Collaboration [14] is a forum for organizing technical and scientific research in LIGO. Its mission is to ensure equal scientific opportunity for individual participants and institutions by organizing research, publications, and all other scientific activities. It includes scientists from LIGO Laboratory and collaborating institutions. It is a separate organization from LIGO Laboratory with its own leadership and governance, but it reports to the LIGO Laboratory Directorate for final approval of its research program, technical projects, observational physics publications, and talks announcing new observations and physics results.

LIGO was inaugurated in November 1999, when construction activities were substantially complete. Since then, the project has carried out commissioning activities interleaved with progressively more sensitive data gathering. Those undertakings involve the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (a group of more than 45 institutions and 450 scientists) in the scientific activities of LIGO.

7  

LCG consists of members in the NSF Office of Budget and Finance Award Management, Division of Grants and Agreements, Office of the General Council, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, and Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate [1].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
References

[1] Victor Cook (NSF). NSF Management and Oversight of LIGO. Large Facility Projects Best Practices Workshop (NSF), Sept. 21, 2001.

[2] LIGO chronology. LIGO Press & Media Kit. Available at <http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/PR/scripts/chrono.html>.

[3] Jeffrey Mervis. Funding of two science labs revives pork barrel vs. peer review debate. The Scientist 5[23]:0, Nov. 25, 1991.

[4] Robert Buderi. Going after gravity: How a high-risk project got funded. The Scientist 2[17]:1.

[5] Malcolm W. Brown. Experts clash over project to detect gravity wave. New York Times, April 30, 1991, p. C1.

[6] FY 1992-FY 1993 National Science Foundation authorization. Hearing before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, March 13, 1991. CIS-NO: 91-H701-51.

[7] M. Mitchell Waldrop. Of politics, pulsars, death spirals—and LIGO. Science 249:1106-1108.

[8] NRC Physics Survey Committee, Physics Through the 1990s: A Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.

[9] Rick Boucher. Introduction of National Science Foundation authorization act amendments of 1991. Congressional Record, Vol. 137, No. 70, May 9, 1991.

[10] John Travis. LIGO: A $250 million gamble. Science 260:612-614.

[11] Christopher Anderson. LIGO director out in shakeup. Science 263:1366.

[12] William T. Broad. Big science squeezes small-scale researchers. New York Times, December 29, 1992, p. C1.

[13] Robert Irion. LIGO’s mission of gravity. Science 288:420-423.

[14] LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) available at <www.ligo.org>. (Official LIGO website: <www.ligo.caltech.edu>.)

[15] W. Wayt Gibbs. Ripples in spacetime. Scientific American 28:62.

[16] Correspondence with Barry Barish, who consulted with Rainer Weiss and Kip Thorne.

NEES (GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION)

Description

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) will be a geographically distributed national network of shared experimental earthquake engineering research equipment sites linked by a high-performance Internet system; it will consist of three major components:

  • Next-generation earthquake engineering research equipment (such as shake tables, a tsunami wave basin, geotechnical centrifuges, large-scale laboratory facilities, and mobile and permanently installed field equipment) distributed around the country at 15 universities.

  • NEESgrid, a high-performance network that will connect the remote sites and enable remote equipment operation and experimental viewing,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

distributed experimentation, collaboration, data sharing, and simulation via the Internet.

  • A nonprofit university consortium, NEES Consortium, Inc., which will be responsible for NEES operation and management during FY 2005– FY 2014.

Approval and Funding History

NEES was approved in November 1998 by the NSB for possible inclusion in the FY 2000 budget. MREFC funding began in FY 2000 for design, development, and construction.

Managing Institutions

To construct NEES, NSF has made 18 awards: 16 awards for equipment to 15 institutions, one award to the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign for network system integration through NEESgrid, and one award to the nonprofit Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) for development of the nonprofit university consortium.

Development Summary

In October 1994, 9 months after the Northridge, California, earthquake, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Reauthorization Act (PL 103-374) was signed into law. See Table C-9 for a timeline of the major developments.

As part of the act, the President was required to “conduct an assessment of earthquake engineering research and testing capabilities.” To comply, NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cosponsored an assessment study by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). A workshop, attended by 65 invited participants, was the primary element of the study and resulted in a frequently cited report released in September 1995 [1]. The report recommended an increase in funding and support for earthquake research, as many reports had in the past. In October, Daniel P. Abrams, chair of the EERI study, testified before the House Committee on Science.

In December 1995, NSF held a small workshop on the future of earthquake engineering experimental research to develop an action plan [8]. The National Network for High Performance Seismic Simulation (NHPS,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-9 Timeline of Major Developments

January 17, 1994

Northridge, California, earthquake.

October 19, 1994

NEHRP Reauthorization Act is signed into law (PL 103-374); it requires earthquake engineering research assessment.

January 17, 1995

Kobe, Japan, earthquake.

May 1995

EERI begins assessment study sponsored by NSF and NIST [1].

July 31-August 1, 1995

EERI holds workshop in San Francisco as primary element of assessment; 65 invited participants attend [1].

September 1995

EERI releases report [1]: Assessment of Earthquake Engineering Research and Testing Capabilities in the United States.

October 23, 1995

Abrams testifies on EERI report before House Committee on Science [15, 4].

December 1995

NSF workshop on future directions in earthquake engineering experimental research [8].

June 1997

NSF internal project-development plan for NHPS.

Late summer 1997

NSB gives go-ahead to ENG to develop detailed project-management proposal [6].

October 1, 1997

1997 NEHRP Reauthorization Act is signed into law (PL 105-47).

October 7, 1997

NSF announces (NSF PR 97-59) new funding for three centers (University of California, Berkeley; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; and State University of New York, Buffalo) to form consortia for earthquake engineering [12].

October 15, 1997

EERI meeting in San Francisco, California, directed by Jim Jirsa (University of Texas), to assist NSF in planning for NHPS [6].

February 1998

NHPS session is held at EERI meeting in San Francisco [7].

February 2-April 1998

At EERI experimental-research forum, it is unanimously decided that NHRP should be managed by consortium of universities [7].

May 8-9, 1998

NSF-sponsored NHPS workshop: tsunami and coastal engineering and research community, in Baltimore, Maryland (18 participants) [9].

May 28-29, 1998

NSF-sponsored NHPS workshop: geotechnical earthquake engineering research community at University of California, Davis (40 participants) [2a, 2b].

June 1998

Eugene Wong, information-technology specialist formerly with OSTP, takes over as assistant director of ENG [16, 12].

June 4, 1998

NHPS meeting in Seattle, Washington, arranged by Jirsa and Abrams after sixth national conference on earthquake engineering, for potential consortium members [7].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

November 1998

NSB approves inclusion of NEES in NSF FY 2000 budget [10].

February 1999

NEES included in NSF FY 2000 budget [12].

December 1999

Solicitation is issued (NSF 00-6) for NEES earthquake engineering research equipment, phase 1 [12, 13]; solicitation is issued (NSF 00-7) for NEES system integration [12, 14].

February 10, 2000

NSF holds roundtable discussion with presenters from geosciences, earthquake engineering, and computer science; purpose is to address what is expected and required of NEES [4].

September 2000

Award (NSF 00-7) to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, for earthquake engineering research community workshop held November 16-17, 2000 [12].

October 2000-January 2001

In award (NSF 00-6), NSF makes 11 awards to 10 universities for new equipment and upgrades totaling $45 million [12, 13].

January 2001

Solicitation is issued (NSF 01-56) for NEES consortium development [12].

August 2001

Award (NSF 00-7) to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, for NEESgrid ($10 million) [12, 14].

September 2001

Solicitation is issued (NSF 01-164) for NEES earthquake engineering research equipment, phase 2 [12].

October 2001

Award (NSF 01-56) to CUREE for NEES consortium development project ($2 million) [12].

February-September 2002

21 regional workshops are held by NEES consortium development project [11, 12].

June 19-20, 2002

First national NEES consortium development project workshop [12].

September-October 2002

In award (NSF 01-164), NSF makes five awards to five universities for new equipment and upgrades totaling $15.5 million [12].

January 2003

NEES consortium is incorporated; initial directors and bylaws are chosen [12].

April 28, 2003

First NEES Consortium, Inc., election [12]

May 21-22, 2003

First annual meeting of NEES Consortium, Inc. [12]

September 30, 2004

Planned completion date for NEES construction.

FY 05–FY 14

NEES research and operations period.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

the original name for NEES) was developed by NSF9 with a project-development plan in July 1997. Later that summer, the NSB gave the go-ahead to the NSF Engineering Directorate (ENG) to develop a detailed project-management proposal.

In October 1997, another NEHRP Reauthorization Act (PL 105-47) was signed into law; it required NSF and other agencies to develop a “comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research.” An EERI meeting was held in San Francisco by Jim Jirsa (University of Texas, Austin) to assist NSF in planning for NHPS. At the meeting, William Anderson (director of the ENG Earthquake Mitigation Program) reported on the favorable review by the NSB. Over the next year, several workshops and meetings were held to discuss NHPS and engage the relevant research communities. In June 1998, Eugene Wong, an information-technology specialist formerly with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), assumed the position of assistant director of ENG. Additional planning workshops for NHPS/NEES were also held by the earthquake engineering community in 1998 [2a, 9].

NEES received MREFC funding in the FY 2000 budget. NSF began issuing solicitations for proposals in December 1999 and made the first 11 equipment awards between September 2000 and February 2001. After a system integration scoping study was completed, the award for full system integration was made in August 2001. The award for consortium development was made in September 2001. Five additional equipment awards were made in September 2002. All NEES equipment will be fully operational by September 30, 2004.

References

[1] Assessment of Earthquake Engineering Research and Testing Capabilities in the United States. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Proceedings: Document WP-01A, Summary Report: Document WP-01. September 1995.

[2a] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Experimental Facilities: Developing a National Network with Structural, Seismological and Coastal High Performance Seismic Simulation Facilities, University of California, Davis, May 28-29, 1998. Available at <http://cgm.engr.ucdavis.edu/NEES/NHPSconference.html>.

[2b] Developing a National Network with Structural, Seismological, and Coastal Earthquake Engineering Seismic Simulation Facilities. University of California, Davis, April 1999 (workshop date May 1998).

9  

Bruce Kutter: “A National Network for High Performance Seismic Simulation (NHPS) was proposed within NSF as a Major Research Equipment (MRE) initiative to respond to the need to develop integrated experimental research facilities” [2b]. Bruce Kutter: “Within the National Science Foundation, the focus of NEES has been steered toward an ultimate goal of non-physical simulations” [2b]. In 1999, Rita R. Colwell indicated that NEES was modeled after the “highly successful” National Nanofabrication Users Network [3].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

[3] Federal News Service. Prepared Testimony of Dr. Rita Colwell, director, National Science Foundation, before the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations, March 23, 1999.

[4] Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) program briefing, Roundtable discussion by earthquake engineering researchers, NSF, February 10, 2000.

[5] SRI International Science and Technology, History of the NSF Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Program. Prepared for NSF, Draft Report, October 7, 1999, p. 43.

[6] EERI Newsletter. NSB Gives NSF’s earthquake mitigation program green light to continue planning a national network for high performance seismic simulation, November 1997.

[7] J. Jirsa and D. Abrams. Planning meeting scheduled for June regarding national network of high performance seismic simulation facilities. EERI News, April 1998.

[8] An Experimental Facilities Initiative in Earthquake Engineering: Action Plan for Upgrading, Expansion and Utilization. Report to the NSF, January 1996.

[9] Report for a National Science Foundation Workshop for Tsunami Research Facilities. NSF Workshop Report, 1998.

[10] Federal News Service. Prepared Testimony of Dr. Joseph Bordogna, acting deputy director, National Science Foundation, before the Basic Research Subcommittee, House Committee on Science, Feb. 23, 1999. Prepared Testimony of Dr. Eugene Wong, assistant director for engineering, National Science Foundation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space; Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, June 29, 1999. (These two statements are essentially identical.)

[11] White Paper: Towards a Vision for the NEES Collaboratory, version 3.0, Task Group on Collaboratory Research, NEES Consortium Development Project, CUREE; Oct. 1, 2002.

[12] NSF’s NEES website: <www.eng.nsf.gov/nees>. NEES Consortium, Inc., website: <www.nees.org>. NEESgrid website: <www.neesgrid.org>.

[13] Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES): Earthquake Engineering Research Equipment, Program Solicitation (NSF 00-6) December 20, 1999.

[14] Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES): System Integration, Program Solicitation (NSF 00-7) December 2, 1999.

[15] NEHRP Coalition in Support of Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Testimony of Dr. Daniel P. Abrams, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, before House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Basic Research, April 24, 1997.

[16] NSF Press Release (NSF PA 98-2), April 28, 1998.

NEON (NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK)

Description

The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) will be a continental-scale research platform consisting of geographically distributed observatories that are networked via state-of-the-art communications. NEON will allow researchers to study the structure and dynamics of US ecosystems with the goal of measuring and forecasting biologic change resulting from human and natural influences on local to continental scales. The overall conceptual theme of this network of research observatories will be the nature and pace of biologic change.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

NEON observatories will contain cutting-edge instrumentation, site-based experimental infrastructure, natural-history and data archives; and computational, analytic, and modeling facilities. In addition to field-based infrastructure, NEON will include laboratory equipment and support personnel, and it will stimulate the development of technologies to permit new ways of integrating, analyzing, and visualizing data. Rather than being envisioned as multiple collections of sensors that monitor individual sites or regions, NEON will be a network of colocated infrastructure deployed across the United States, creating a “network of networks.” Once commissioned, NEON will be used to conduct research projects supported through disciplinary and multidisciplinary programs at NSF. Data generated from “standard measurements” made with NEON will be publicly available. NEON will transform ecologic research by enabling research on regional to continental scales using state-of-the-art technology.

Approval and Funding History

Funds for construction were requested in FY 2001 and FY 2003 budgets but were denied without prejudice by Congress. Negotiations are under way for the inclusion of funding in the FY 2004 budget.

Managing Institutions

Not applicable.

Development Summary

Beginning in 1997, as part of its annual strategic planning process, the NSF Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) senior management discussed the infrastructure needed to enable leading-edge biologic research. Bruce Hayden, who had recently joined NSF as a visiting-scientist director of the Division of Environmental Biology, suggested that a national network of environmental observatories would enable ecologists to address important regional- and continental-scale questions. See Table C-10 for a timeline of the major developments.

He then informally discussed these ideas at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA). With favorable responses from the research community, BIO began to develop this idea into NEON. Scott Collins, a former Ecology Program director, succinctly summed up NEON’s development [1]: “Once we had the concept … we asked the community to design it for us.”

In March 1998, the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystems, which

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-10 Timeline of Major Developments

August 1997

BIO senior management discuss infrastructure needed to enable leading-edge biologic research as part of annual strategic planning cycle; Bruce Hayden, director of Division of Environmental Biology, suggests that national network of colocated infrastructure is needed to address next frontier in ecologic research, regional- to continental-scale studies; he floats his idea at annual ESA meeting; BIO begins to formulate idea into NEON [2].

March 1998

PCAST Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystems completes report Teaming with Life, many elements of which appear to have been incorporated into NEON; panel included Peter Raven (chair) and Rita R. Colwell [3].

April 1998

At April 6-7 BIO Advisory Committee meeting, Bruce Hayden provides report on senior management planning, including discussion of environmental observatories.

August 12, 1998

NSB establishes TFE under its Committee on Programs and Plans [4].

September 10-11, 1998

First BON workshop [5].

November 1998

NEON identified to NSB on list of potential large-infrastructure projects.

January 14, 1999

TFE public hearing in Portland, Oregon [4].

January 14-17, 1999

Second BON workshop [6].

February 17-18, 1999

Public NSB symposium in Los Angeles, California, provides community feedback for TFE [4].

March 8, 1999

TFE public town-hall meeting in Arlington, Virginia [4].

April 1999

At April 22-23 BIO Advisory Committee meeting, Mary Clutter discusses proposals for FY 2001 budget, including establishment of National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON).

May 6-7, 1999

Third BON workshop [7].

June 29, 1999

TFE’s interim report is approved by NSB and released for public comment [4].

August 1999

NSB approves NSF FY 2001 budget request, including NEON as MREFC project.

August 27-29, 1999

Fourth BON workshop [8].

January 10-12, 2000

First NEON workshop, on basic concept development (26 participants, four NSF observers) [9].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

February 2, 2000

NSB approves and releases TFE’s final report, Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century [4].

February 2000

NEON appears in NSF’s FY 2001 budget, which is later denied “without prejudice” by Congress.

March 9-10, 2000

Second NEON workshop, on equipment, infrastructure, and personnel (24 participants) [10].

May 3-4, 2000

Third NEON workshop, on organization and management (13 participants) [11].

2001

National Research Council report: Grand Challenges in Environmental Research.

February 2002

NEON appears in NSF FY 2003 budget, which is later denied “without prejudice” by Congress.

June 4-5, 2002

Fourth NEON workshop, on standard measurements and infrastructure needs (22 participants, three observers) [12].

June 14-16, 2002

Fifth NEON workshop, on biologic-collections community (30 participants) [13].

August 5, 2002

NEON session at ESA, Tucson, Arizona: NEON: Next Steps toward Reality [18].

September 16-18, 2002

Sixth NEON workshop, on information management (19 participants, three observers) [14].

September 2002

NSF awards AIBS $1.3 million to create IBRCS with AIBS Executive Director Richard O’Grady as principal investigator [15].

September 10, 2002

ESA sends letter to Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), ranking member, House Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, asking for his support for NEON [16].

November 15-16, 2002

IBRCS holds first face-to-face meeting in Arlington, Virginia [17].

December 13, 2002

IBRCS holds NEON town-hall meeting in Washington, D.C. [17].

January 17, 2003

IBRCS holds NEON town-hall meeting in Los Angeles, California [17].

February 14, 2003

IBRCS holds NEON town-hall meeting in Denver, Colorado [17].

February 2003

NEON appears in FY 2004 budget request.

March 25, 2003

IBRCS white paper released at public roundtable at National Press Club [15, 17, 18].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

May 2003

National Research Council Board on Life Sciences begins study on NEON, to be completed in fall [21].

June 30, 2003

Elizabeth Blood new NSF program director for research resources and is responsible for NEON [17].

July 2003

House Passes NSF bill funding $12.0M for NEON.

September 2003

Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations recommends no new starts in MREFC account [19].

September 4-5, 2003

Seventh NEON workshop, on NEON coordination and implementation [18].

September 17, 2003

National Research Council Board on Life Sciences report on NEON released [20, 21].

included Peter Raven (chair) and Rita R. Colwell, completed the report Teaming with Life. Many elements of that report appear to have been incorporated into the NEON project. In August 1998, the NSB Committee on Programs and Plans established a Task Force on the Environment [4] (TFE), which included Clutter. After a series of public meetings and several opportunities for community input, the TFE published its final report, Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century, in February 2000. Soon thereafter, NEON was described as a first step in fulfilling the vision outlined in the report. And in 2001, the National Research Council report Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences not only called for regional and continental approaches for the eight grand challenges identified in the report but also suggested that infrastructure would be needed to enable such research.

While the TFE was in operation, a series of four workshops [5-8] were held for the development of the Biodiversity Observation Network (BON). In January 2000, the first NEON workshop was held [9], and BON was incorporated as a small part of the much broader NEON project. In February 2000, NEON was included in the NSF FY 2001 budget. Two more NEON workshops [10, 11] were held in the first half of 2000 before Congress denied funding “without prejudice.” NEON was not included in the FY 2002 budget but was included in the FY 2003 and was again denied funding “without prejudice.” Three more NEON workshops were held from July to September 2002 [12-14].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

In September 2002, ESA sent a letter to Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, asking him to support NEON. In that same month, NSF awarded the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) $1.3 million to establish a working group to design the Infrastructure for Biology at Regional to Continental Scales (IBRCS) with AIBS Executive Director Richard O’Grady as principal investigator. The goal of the IBRCS working group, chaired by Kent Holsinger (University of Connecticut), is to “further advance the [NEON] initiative by explaining the scientific rationale behind the need for NEON, how NEON will operate to meet that need, and the results that NEON is expected to produce” [17]. The IBRCS began holding a series of three town-hall meetings on NEON in December 2002 and released a white paper on NEON in March 2003 at a public roundtable.

In February 2003, NEON was included in the NSF FY 2004 budget. In June 2003, Elizabeth Blood became the new NSF program director for research resources, and she is responsible for NEON. In fall 2003, the National Research Council Board on Life Sciences released a study on NEON. The author committee strongly supported the creation of a NEON-like program and commended NSF’s overall vision for NEON. It also cautioned that the proposed implementation plans needed modification and refinement to ensure that NEON would focus on the most important scientific issues, efficiently provide the national network of infrastructure essential for each challenge, encourage creative research, and meet the requirements for MREFC funding.

References

[1] Jeffrey A. Goldman. NEON Illuminated (editorial). BioScience, 53:447.

[2] J. Mervis and J. Kaiser. NSF hopes Congress will see the light on NEON. Science 300:1869.

[3] Teaming with Life: Investing in Science to Understand and Use America’s Living Capital, Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystems, President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, March 1998.

[4] National Science Board, Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation, February 2, 2000: NSB 00-22.

[5] Final Report: Biodiversity Monitoring Project Workshop. A National Biodiversity Observatory Network. University of Virginia’s Blandy Experimental Farm, September 1998.

[6] Report of the Second Workshop on the Biological Observation Network. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, Calif., January 1999.

[7] Report of the Third Workshop on the Biodiversity Observatory Network. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, Calif., May 1999.

[8] Report of the Fourth Workshop on the Biological Observation Network, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, Calif., August 1999.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

[9] Report on the First Workshop on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), January 10-12, 2000. Held at Archibold Station, Lake Placid, Fla. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

[10] Report to the National Science Foundation from the Second Workshop on the Development of a National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), March 9-13, 2000. Held at San Diego Supercomputer Center, La Jolla, Calif.

[11] Report to the National Science Foundation from the Third Workshop on the Development of a National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), May 3-4, 2000. Held at Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, N. Mex.

[12] Report to the National Science Foundation from the Fourth Workshop on the Development of a National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON): Standard Measurements and Infrastructure Needs, June 4-5, 2002. Held at The Millennium Hotel, Boulder, Colo.

[13] Final Report NEON-V: CRIPTON Workshop. Collections, Research, Inventories, and People for Taxonomic Opportunities in NEON, June 14-16, 2002. Held at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Ill.

[14] Report to the National Science Foundation from the Sixth Workshop on the Development of a National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON): Information Management, September 16-18, 2002. Held at National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara.

[15] Sonya Senkowsky. NEON: Planning for a New Frontier in Biology, BioScience 53:456.

[16] Ann M. Bartuska. ESA Statements, September 10, 2002. Available at <http://www.esa.org/pao/statements_resolutions/statements/nsfneon.htm>.

[17] K.E. Holsinger and the IBRCS Working Group. IBRCS White Paper: Rationale, Blue-print, and Expectations for the National Ecological Observatory Network, Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences, March 2003.

[18] IBRCS web site: <http://ibrcs.aibs.org>.

[19] Senate Report 108-143, September 2003.

[20] Panel Suggests a Difference Shade of NEON. Science 301:1828.

[21] National Research Council. NEON: Addressing the Nation’s Environmental Challenges. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2003. Available at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10807.html>.

OOI (OCEAN OBSERVATORIES INITIATIVE)

Description

The Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) will “provide the ocean science community in the U.S. with the basic infrastructure required to make long-term measurements in the oceans” [1]. The OOI will consist of three components: a global network of relocatable deep-sea observatories based around a system of moored buoys, a system of cabled permanent observation sites on the seafloor spanning regional-scale (10-1000 km) features, and an expanded network of coastal observatories. Scientific questions in ocean research and a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of the ocean and land environments essential for sustaining the human race have prompted an increased desire for long-term, temporal information about ocean systems. Driven primarily by the 2001 NSF Division of Ocean

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

Sciences (OCE) Decadal Committee report Ocean Sciences at the New Millennium, the OOI addresses needs identified by the ocean-science community for advancing basic ocean research. In the future, the OOI will become the research-oriented contribution to the proposed Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System (IOOS) developed by Ocean.US under the auspices of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). The IOOS will serve as the key US contribution to the international Global Ocean Observing System [1]. The OOI will develop in parallel with the Ocean Information Technology Infrastructure program, which will support its data assimilation, archiving, analysis, and visualization needs [2].

Approval and Funding History

Support for OOI design and development began in 2001, and the OOI was identified as a FY 2006 new start in the NSF 2004 budget request.

Managing Institutions

Not applicable.

Development Summary

The OOI, which has yet to receive NSF MREFC funding, represents the consolidation of various recommendations made by workshops and reviews. In the early part of the 1990s, NSF-funded workshops broadly discussed the future need for observatories in the geophysical sciences. In 1996, a subset of those attending prior conferences met to discuss the possibility of a national seafloor observatory system. See Table C-11 for a timeline of the major developments. That led to the formation of the Deep Earth Observatories on the Seafloor (DEOS) initiative in 1997. The initial focus of DEOS limited itself to deepwater geo-observatories, but it gradually expanded to include nearshore observatories and water-column studies. In 1999, the name was changed to Dynamics of Earth and Ocean Systems to reflect the “effort to engage the wider oceanographic community” [3].

In 1999, NSF asked the National Research Council to investigate “the scientific merit, technical requirements, and overall feasibility” [3] of developing an unmanned seafloor observatory. Drawing on internal resources, past reports, and recommendations from the January 2000 Symposium on Seafloor Observatories, the Research Council issued the 2000 report Illuminating the Hidden Planet. The report provided 10 recommendations for moving forward with a seafloor observatory program to collect time-series observations using both moored-buoy and cabled observato-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-11 Timeline of Major Developments

Before 1996

Discussions among geophysical scientists concerning future observatory needs.

1996

Meeting to discuss possibility of seafloor observatory [3].

1997

Establishment of Deep Earth Observatories on the Seafloor (DEOS) initiative [3].

1997

Congress establishes NOPP [4].

1998

Formation of NSF OCE Decadal Committee [5].

1999

DEOS changed to stand for Dynamics of Earth and Ocean Systems [3]; NSF asks National Research Council to investigate possibility of unmanned seafloor observatory [3].

January 10-12, 2000

Symposium on Seafloor Observatories in Islamorada, Florida.

2000

National Research Council releases Illuminating the Hidden Planet [3].

January 8-9, 2001

Ocean Observatories Steering Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. [6].

March 2001

NSF OCE Decadal Committee releases Ocean Sciences at the New Millennium [5].

June 18-19, 2001

Ocean Observatories Steering Committee meeting in Boulder, Colorado [7].

July 12, 2001

Hearing on ocean exploration and ocean observations before House Committees on Resources and Science [4].

March 19, 2002

DEOS Steering Committee meeting with NSF Director Colwell [8].

Spring 2002

NSF requests National Research Council study on implementing seafloor observatory network [1].

April 16-17, 2002

DEOS Steering Committee meeting in La Jolla, California [8].

May 7-9, 2002

CoOP meeting in Savannah, Georgia [9].

August 26-28, 2002

SCOTS meeting in Portsmouth, Virginia [10].

October 3-4, 2002

DEOS Steering Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. [9].

February 5-7, 2003

Moored Buoy Working Group Meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico [11].

February 2003

President Bush’s FY 2004 budget request includes out-year funding for OOI in FY 2006.

March 3-4, 2003

DEOS Steering Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. [11].

June 3-4, 2003

DEOS Steering Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. [11].

June 19-20, 2003

Cable Re-Use Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. [11].

Summer 2003

National Research Council releases Enabling Ocean Research in the 21st Century.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

ries and having the open availability of data and coordination with international efforts.

The NSF OCE Decadal Committee convened in 1998 released its recommendations for the future of ocean research in March 2001. The “New Technologies” section cited three elements of technologic development that would later make up the three components of the OOI. Recognizing that “ships alone do not represent scientific capability” and that “physical and chemical sensors for making in situ measurements” would prove crucial to the advancement of ocean sciences, the report listed the need for the following capabilities: the ability to conduct ocean sampling “on space and time scales appropriately tuned to the process being investigated, new fixed (cabled or moored buoy) and mobile (ROV [Remotely operated vehicle], AUV [Autonomous underwater vehicles], and drifter) ocean-observing systems, [and] long-term monitoring of the ocean” [5]. In a Hearing before the House Committees on Resources and Science on July 12, 2001, Rita R. Colwell, director of NSF, cited the decadal study when introducing the recently established OOI. She described the effort as a means to “provide basic infrastructure for a new way of gaining access to the oceans, by starting to build a network of ocean observatories that would facilitate the collection of long time-series data streams needed to understand the dynamics of biological, chemical, geological and physical processes” [4].

Before the July hearing, the Ocean Observatories Steering Committee (OOSC) had held two meetings, in January and June 2001, to clarify its role in the OOI development process. The OOSC clarified its position as the point of contact between NSF and the community of ocean observatories [9]. The June meeting also established that with respect to NSF “the purpose of the OOSC is to advise the NSF on the MRE initiative to fund infrastructure for ocean observatories” [7].

The DEOS Steering Committee met with NSF Director Colwell on March 19, 2002. Dr. Colwell recommended that DEOS not seek earmarked funding for the OOI inasmuch as it would “not include the additional funding through the R&RA account that typically accompanies MREFC projects” [8]. The budget request for FY 2003 submitted by the president in February 2002 did not include funding for the OOI from the NSF MREFC account.

In the spring of 2002, NSF requested a study from the National Research Council on “issues related to the implementation of a seafloor observatory network” [1]. The particular concerns addressed included the development and implementation of the network, the impact on existing ocean-studies facilities, and the potential role of the OOI in IOOS and other international efforts. A preliminary version of the report was made available in summer 2003 and was titled Enabling Ocean Research in the 21st

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

Century. The recommendations made by the Research Council draw on three workshops overseen by the DEOS Steering Committee.

In May 2002, a Coastal Ocean Processes (CoOP) workshop took place in Savannah, Georgia. The purposes of the workshop included determining which science is best suited to coastal observing systems and identifying technologies most useful to the Coastal Integrated Observing System. The design criteria suggested included a set of relocatable, or “Pioneer,” arrays that the CoOP considered implementing as part of the OOI coastal component [9].

In August 2002, a Scientific Cabled Observatories for Time Series (SCOTS) workshop took place in Portsmouth, Virginia. The workshop’s charge included providing “advice on the scientific rationale and implementation of a network of regional cabled observatories” [10].

In February 2003, a Moored Buoy Working Group met in Santa Fe, New Mexico. During the same month, the President submitted his request for the FY 2004 budget, which did not include MREFC funding for the OOI but did for the first time make out-year requests, including funding for the OOI in FY 2006.

References

[1] National Research Council. Enabling Ocean Research in the 21st Century, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, p. 1, 2003.

[2] Ocean Observatories Initiative brochure.

[3] NRC. Illuminating the Hidden Planet. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000.

[4] Hearing on Ocean Exploration and Observations. Testimony of Dr. Rita R. Colwell, director NSF, before House committees on Resources and Science, July 12, 2001.

[5] NSF OCE Ocean Sciences at the New Millennium, 2001.

[6] Minutes, OOSC, January 8-9, 2001, Washington, D.C.

[7] Minutes, OOSC, June 18-19, 2001, Boulder, Colo.

[8] Minutes, DEOS-SC April 16-17, 2002, La Jolla, Calif.

[9] Minutes, DEOS-SC October 3-4, 2002, Washington, D.C.

[10] SCOTS workshop report, August 26-28, 2002, Portsmouth, Va.

[11] DEOS website: <www.coreocean.org/DEOS>.

POLAR AIRCRAFT

Description

The Polar Aircraft project was required in order to modify three NSF-owned ski-equipped LC-130 aircraft to meet Air Force safety and operability standards. These modifications include engineering, avionics, airframe, safety, and propulsion. Ski-equipped LC-130 aircraft are the backbone of air transport for the US Antarctic Program (USAP) and sup-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

port NSF research in the Arctic. The LC-130 is the only heavy-lift aircraft capable of making winter landings at the South Pole [1]. All polar LC-130 aircraft are operated by the New York Air National Guard (ANG) 109th Airlift Wing. ANG owns six LC-130s and also operates the four NSF-owned aircraft.

Approval and Funding History

The aircraft were approved in August 1998. MREFC funding began in FY 1999 and was continued in FY 2000 for planning, design, and development and construction. In FY 2001, NSF received authority to reprogram up to $1 million to complete the project.

Managing Institutions

The contract for the modifications is administered by the Air Logistics Command at Robins Air Force Base. The initial contractor was Raytheon Aircraft Integration Systems, which was later purchased by L3 Communications. L3 and about 240 subcontractors provide supplies and technical services.

Development Summary

In January 1997, a memorandum of agreement between the Navy, Air Force, National Guard Bureau, NSF, and Department of Defense identified ANG as the appropriate organization to assume operational control of all LC-130s in the USAP. See Table C-12 for a timeline of major developments. In March 1999, ANG assumed operational control for all LC-130s [3]. Six of the 10 aircraft are ANG-owned. One NSF-owned aircraft already met Air Force safety and operability standards, but three older NSF-owned aircraft needed additional upgrades to meet the standards.

During 1998, the NSF Office of Polar Programs reviewed whether the polar mission could be supported with nine rather than 10 LC-130s, but the review made clear that ANG required 10 LC-130s to support the polar mission in addition to its other missions [4]. Because that review was in progress when the FY 1999 NSF budget request was being prepared, the FY 1999 NSF budget request included $20 million in the Major Research Equipment account for the modification of two LC-130s, and these funds were appropriated in FY 1999. Funding for the third aircraft was provided in FY 2000 [5].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-12 Timeline of Major Developments

January 21, 1997

Memorandum of agreement transfers control of LC-130 polar heavy airlift to ANG [2].

March 26, 1998

ANG assumes control of all LC-130 polar operations [3].

Summer 1998

Discussions regarding need to update all three NSF-owned aircraft [4].

1999

First year of MREFC funding to upgrade NSF-owned LC-130s to meet Air Force safety and operability standards.

References

[1] Global Security web site: <www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/lc-130.htm>.

[2] DefenseLINK News. Memorandum No. 007-M, January 21, 1997.

[3] DefenseLINK News. News Release No. 132-98, March 26, 1998.

[4] Preliminary Report of the August 12-13, 1998, NSB Meeting (NSB 98-164).

[5] NSF FY 2001 MRE Budget Request.

POLAR CAP OBSERVATORY

Description

The Polar Cap Observatory, a multi-instrumented ground-based facility, will be in the northern polar cap at Resolute Bay in Canada. It will consist of a large state-of-the art radar facility with an accompanying array of smaller optical and radiowave remote-sensing instruments. The new facility will allow for monitoring of “space weather,” the conditions in the space environment that can influence the performance and reliability of spaceborne and ground-based technologic systems. Space-weather storms can disrupt satellites, communication, navigation, and electric-power distribution grids.

Approval and Funding History

The project was approved in May 1998 and placed in FY 1998 and FY 1999 budget requests, but no funding was received. The project has not been included in a budget request since then.

Managing Institutions

Not applicable.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

RSVP (RARE SYMMETRY VIOLATING PROCESSES)

Description

The Rare Symmetry Violating Processes project (RSVP) will consist of two experiments at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) that will look for rare decay processes of certain elementary particles. If observed, these processes would indicate the existence of new phenomena beyond the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particle physics. Probing rare processes generally involves effects due to virtual-particle production and annihilation, and through these effects one is provided access to particle mass scales much higher than those accessible through direct accelerator production. Initially, the RSVP would construct and carry out two fundamental experiments: MECO (a study of an extremely rare process for conversion of muons to electrons, hence the acronym) and KOPIO (a similarly rare process for studying the decay of neutral kaons into neutral pions). MECO will search for conversion of muons into electrons in the nuclear Coulomb field, an event with a 10-17 probability of occurring. Muon-to-electron conversion is accommodated within the SM, but the basic SM mechanism would produce an event rate far below what is measurable. Instead, MECO will search for excess conversion that would point toward new physics, that is, beyond the SM. KOPIO will explore the world of Charge-Parity (CP) violation, the process by which the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry is thought to have arisen. KOPIO will search for rare decays of neutral kaons into neutral pions and neutrino-antineutrino pairs, a process mediated by direct CP violation and very well understood in terms of the SM. Any deviation from the SM or from similar measurements of CP violation in the B-meson sector would indicate the existence of physics beyond the SM. By either ruling out or characterizing these processes at probability as low as 10-17, the RSVP will help to clarify existing questions and elicit new ones about the fundamental structure of matter. The RSVP will represent the efforts of a 30-institution collaboration involving the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Japan, and Russia.

Approval and Funding History

Although recommended for approval by the NSB in 2001, overall national budget pressures have delayed budget appropriations for the RSVP. Funding is anticipated in FY 2006, as was indicated in the FY 2004 budget request to Congress.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Managing Institutions

RSVP will be an MREFC project carried out under a cooperative agreement between NSF and New York University (NYU), the RSVP grant-holding institution. A memorandum of understanding and subcontract between NYU and the University of California, Irvine (UCI) exists to oversee the construction of MECO. UCI will be the lead institution for MECO. A memorandum of understanding and subcontract between NYU and the State University of New York at Stony Brook (SUNY-SB) exists for the construction of KOPIO. SUNY-SB will be the lead institution for KOPIO. As the site for both experiments, BNL will assume a support and oversight role in RSVP.

Development History

RSVP will bring together two experiments that seek to detect rare processes that violate symmetries required by the SM of particle physics. The history of MECO can be traced to a 1989 idea that led to a 1992 design proposal for implementation in the Moscow Meson Factory (MMF) [1] [2]. Because of changes in government, the project did not come to fruition. See Table C-13 for a timeline of the major developments. A 1997 paper presented at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) Summer School discussed the proposal to implement MECO at BNL AGS [1]. The KOPIO experiment was developed as a means of improving understanding of the observed preference in the universe for matter over anti-matter [3].

In 1999, a joint MECO-KOPIO proposal was submitted as a single proposal called RSVP through NYU, with John Sculli as principal investigator, for consideration by NSF. In May 2000, the MREFC panel of the NSF Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences recommended to the NSF director that the request for funding for RSVP be included in the FY 2002 budget request to Congress. In October 2000, the NSB approved RSVP as a candidate to be included as an MREFC project in the NSF budget in FY 2002 and beyond.

In late January 2002, the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) to the Department of Energy and NSF endorsed the scientific goals of RSVP in its 20-year roadmap for the field. RSVP was not included in the MREFC FY 2002 budget request (also January 2002), because of budget constraints.

Starting in FY 2001, NSF has funded R&D activities for the RSVP through merit-reviewed R&D proposals. The funding profile was about $900,000 per year for each of FY 2001, 2002, and 2003. Additional funds have been requested and are under review. NSF has held periodic reviews

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-13 Timeline of Major Developments

1989

Russian scientists propose theory for muon-to-electron conversion experiment [1].

1992

Proposal for Russian muon-to-electron experiment at MMF [2].

Summer 1997

SLAC Summer School presentation of MECO proposal [1].

October 1999

RSVP proposal submitted for MREFC funding [4, 5] through NYU (J. Sculli, principal investigator).

November 1999 – November 2000

NSF conducts three reviews of RSVP proposal covering scientific merit, technical issues, and management; no action taken.

May 2001

MECO R&D proposal funded at $0.5 million/year for 3 years (FY 2001-2003) to UCI (W. Molzon, principal investigator).

June 6, 2001

House Subcommittee on Research hearing during which MREFC board’s approval of RSVP is affirmed [6].

July 2001

KOPIO R&D proposal funded at $0.4 million/year for 3 years (FY 2001-2003) to Yale University (M. Zeller, principal investigator).

January 2002

HEPAP endorses scientific goals of RSVP in its long-range planning (roadmap) for US high-energy physics (The Science Ahead—The Way to Discovery).

September 2002

KOPIO design and development proposal funded at $0.3 million/ year for 2 years (FY 2002-2003) to SUNY/SB (M. Marx, principal investigator).

October 2002

MECO design and development proposal funded at $0.3 million/ year for 2 years (FY 2002-2003) to UCI (W. Molzon, principal investigator).

January 2003

NSF budget proposal for FY 2004 makes out-year request for RSVP MREFC funding in FY 2006.

September 2003

MECO design and development proposal funded at $0.5 million for 1 year to UCI (W. Molzon, prinicipal investigator); KOPIO design and development proposal funded at $0.5 million for 1 year to SUNY/SB (M. Marx, principal investigator).

of technical developments, the RSVP management plan, and R&D activities in an effort to ensure readiness for MREFC funding when it becomes available. Several additional university groups have joined the RSVP collaboration. RSVP is not included in the FY 2004 budget request, but it does appear as an out-year approval for FY 2006 funding. Design and development continue.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
References

[1] William Molzon. Improved Test of Muon and Electron Number Conservation in Muon Processes. Proceedings of the 1997 SLAC Summer School Topical Conference, 1997.

[2] John Sculli. μ -> e Conversion Status and Prospects. Proceedings from the Workshop on Physics at the First Muon Collider and at the Front End of the Muon Collider, 1998.

[3] The KOPIO Experiment, RSVP website. Available at <www.bnl.gov/rsvp/KOPIO.htm>.

[4] Approved minutes from meeting of the Advisory Committee of the NSF Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, April 12-13, 2001.

[5] Approved minutes from meeting of the Advisory Committee of the NSF Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, November 1, 2001.

[6] Hearing Summary from the NSF OLPS of the House Subcommittee on Research hearing on the NSF Research and Related Activities Account and Plant Genomics, June 6, 2001.

[7] American Institute of Physics FYI 60(May 15, 2002).

[8] American Physical Society News Online, July 2002. Available at <www.aps.org/apsnews/0702/index.html>.

SPSE (SOUTH POLE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT)

Description

The South Pole Safety and Environmental project (SPSE) addressed urgent safety concerns at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. The project included replacement of the heavy-equipment maintenance facility, the power plant, and fuel-storage facilities.

Approval and Funding History

MREFC funding of $25 million was provided in FY 1997, and an additional $500,000 was provided in FY 2002 to complete the project.

The SPSE received $25 million for FY 1997 [6] to undertake emergency upgrades, including a new garage and shop, new fuel-storage tanks, and a new power plant [7]. Construction for the SPSE began in the Antarctic in the summer of 1998 and proceeded on schedule despite the bitter conditions of the polar environment. The final phase of the project, completion of the new power plant, ended in January 2001 [8].

SPSM (SOUTH POLE STATION MODERNIZATION)

Description

The South Pole Station Modernization project (SPSM) is a new research station to replace aging facilities at the South Pole. An elevated station will replace the 1975 dome that now houses the US-operated South Pole research facility. Built using a modular design, the new station will house

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

150 people, about 50 percent of whom will be scientists. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the new station, however, will be the ability to raise the entire structure. Because of the snow that blows continuously across the flat Antarctic plain, all buildings eventually find themselves buried. Perching atop stilts, the new structure will stand above the drifting snow, slowing the buildup process. If the snow rises, the station can be raised even higher. The new facility is intended to accommodate the US Antarctic Program (USAP) for 25-40 years [1].

Approval and Funding History

MREFC funding for construction began in FY 1998.

Managing Institutions

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is part of the USAP managed by NSF.

Development Summary (includes South Pole Safety and Environmental Project, SPSE)

The scope of the USAP has increased dramatically over the 40 years of US presence at the southernmost point on the globe [2]. The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, originally intended to house a summer population of about 30 people, now accommodates over 200 in the summer and up to 50 in the winter [1]. See Table C-14 for a timeline of major developments.

In 1995, citing budgetary constraints, the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations requested a study from the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to review US Antarctic policy. In particular, the charge requested that the NSTC examine increasing international cooperation, reducing the year-round operations, and closing one or more of the South Pole stations.10 The study, released in April 1996, recommended a continued year-round US presence at the South Pole to preserve regional stability and enhance US foreign policy. The report also indicated, however, the need for establishing a realistic budget and management plan, and it recommended the creation of an external NSF panel to examine the future of the USAP [3]. After a July 1996 hearing on the USAP at the House Subcommittee on Basic Science of

10  

USAP facilities include Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, McMurdo Station, Palmer Station, and two research vessels [3].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-14 Timeline of Major Developments (includes SPSE)

1975

Opening of Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station [10].

September 1995

Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies of Committee on Appropriations requests report from NSTC to review US Antarctic policy [3].

April 1996

Release of NSTC report United States Antarctic Program [3].

July 23, 1996

Hearing on NSTC report before Subcommittee on Basic Science of House Committee on Science [4].

August 1996

External panel on USAP is convened [5].

1997

SPSE receives $25 million from MREFC funds [6].

March 12, 1997

House Committee on Science hearing on external panel report [5].

April 1997

Release of final external panel report The United States in Antarctica [2].

1998

SPSM receives $24.9 million from MREFC funds.

November 1998

SPSE construction begins [8].

June 9, 1999

NSF Office of Polar Programs director testifies before Subcommittee on Basic Research of House Committee on Science on USAP [7].

Antarctic summer 1999

Completion of SPSE fuel-storage project and shop [8].

November 2000

SPSM construction begins [8].

January 18, 2001

Completion of new satellite communication link [8].

January 20, 2001

Completion of SPSE power plant [8].

February 2003

First winter occupancy of Wings A-1 and A-2 of new station.

February 2004

Estimated occupancy of medical facility and computer laboratory in new station.

the Committee on Science [4], Congress requested the recommended examination. An external panel was convened in August 1996 [5].

The findings of the external panel concurred with the NSTC report on the need for continued year-round presence in Antarctica and for maintaining all three permanent US facilities. Its report encouraged international cooperation, but it stipulated that the United States should continue to build and manage the permanent facilities. To sustain the US presence, the report recommended a plan for building a new optimized

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

station at the South Pole, to be completed by 2005. In response to those reports, NSF requested appropriations to fund the SPSM. The station was designed to house 100 persons but with an infrastructure capable of supporting 150.

MREFC funding for the SPSM began in FY 1998 with an appropriation of $24.9 million [9]. The NSB approved expansion of the 110-person station concept to 150 in 2002. Construction of the tower linking the elevated structure to the new SPSE facilities began in FY 2000 [8]. Adverse weather conditions have slowed the delivery of construction materials and resulted in a shift in estimated completion from 2005 to 2007.

References

[1] Josh Landis. To build a better station. The Antarctic Sun. December 19, 1999.

[2] Report of the USAP External Panel. The United States in Antarctica, April 1997.

[3] Report of the Committee on Fundamental Science, NTSC, United States Antarctic Program, April 1996.

[4] NSF OLPA hearing summary, July 23, 1996.

[5] U.S. Antarctic Program, 1996-1997. Antarctic Journal of the United States Review 1997.

[6] NSF MRE FY 2000 Budget Request.

[7] Testimony of Dr. Karl Erb, director of NSF OPP, before House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Basic Research, June 9, 1999.

[8] NSF Press Release (NSF PR 01-04), January 24, 2001.

[9] SPSM Funding Profile. Available at <www.nsf.gov>.

[10] J. Rand, et al. Rebuilding the South Pole Station. Civil Engineering Magazine Abstracts, December 2000.

TERASCALE COMPUTING PROJECTS

Description

In FY 2000, NSF funded a Terascale Computing System (TCS) [1], the first NSF terascale system to be deployed by the NSF terascale computing systems activity. Based at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC), the TCS has a peak performance of 6 teraflops. When it was dedicated in October 2001, it was the second-most powerful computer in the world and the fastest one available for civilian research. The TCS employs 3,000 Compaq Alpha processors organized into 750 four-processor nodes. Aside from providing unprecedented computational speed, the TCS features 3.0 terabytes of total memory, 40 terabytes of primary storage, and 300 terabytes of disk and tape storage.

In FY 2001, NSF funded the Distributed Terascale Facility (DTF) [2], a geographically distributed, grid-enabled terascale computing system developed at four institutions: the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), Argonne

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

National Laboratory (ANL), and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

In FY 2002, the terascale computing systems activity funded creation of the Extensible Terascale Facility (ETF), providing for the integration and upgrade of the TCS and DTF resources in an extensible architectural framework. In FY 2003, three new awards added scientific instruments, large datasets, and additional computing power and storage capacity to the ETF, enhancing the scientific utility of the system. By the end of FY 2004, the ETF will include more than 20 teraflops of computing power distributed among nine sites, facilities capable of managing and storing approximately a petabyte of data, high-resolution visualization environments, advanced scientific instrumentation, and toolkits for grid computing.

Approval and Funding History

NSF received its first MREFC appropriation for the construction of terascale computing projects in FY 2000. The TCS was funded in FY 2000, and the DTF in FY 2001. MREFC funds in FY 2002 provided upgrades to the TCS and DTF facilities and created an extensible terascale system. MREFC funds in FY 2003 provided through the Terascale Extensions Program connected four additional sites to the ETF: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at the University of Texas at Austin, Indiana University, and Purdue University.

Managing Institutions

The TCS was built by the PSC in partnership with Compaq. The DTF was built by the NCSA and the SDSC, with ANL and Caltech in partnership with IBM, Intel, Myricom, Qwest, Oracle, and Sun. The ETF is the integration of the TCS and DTF facilities and partners with the option to include new resource partners. New ETF partner sites added in FY 2003 include ORNL, University of Texas at Austin, Indiana University, and Purdue University.

Development Summary

In 1998, the Division of Advanced Computational Infrastructure and Research (ACIR), part of the NSF Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), held three workshops addressing issues related to terascale and petascale computing. See Table C-15 for a timeline of major developments. The meetings culminated in the report Terascale and Petascale Computing: Digital Reality in the New Millenium. A joint NSF-Department of Energy (DoE) workshop at the National

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

TABLE C-15 Timeline of Major Developments [18]

May 27, 1998

CISE ACIR Terascale Science Workshop in Arlington, Virginia.

July 9-10, 1998

CISE ACIR Terascale Workshop on Algorithms for the New Millennium in Arlington, Virginia.

July 15-16, 1998

CISE ACIR Terascale HPCC Software for the Next Millennium Workshop in Arlington, Virginia.

July 30-31, 1998

Terascale NSF and DOE workshop at National Academies [7].

February 24, 1999

PITAC report is released [8].

June 1999

NSTC IT2 Working Group Implementation Plan is proposed in President’s FY 2000 budget [9].

December 29,

1999 NSF program solicitation for TCS is issued [10].

August 3, 2000

Award for TCS granted to PSC in partnership with Compaq [1].

October 2000

Prototype system arrives at PSC [11].

January 18, 2001

NSF program solicitation for DTF is issued [13].

April 2001

TCS Prototype begins allocated use.

August 9, 2001

Award for DTF is granted to TeraGrid consortium of NCSA, SDSC, ANL, and Caltech [2].

October 29, 2001

TCS is dedicated and begins “friendly-user” period [12].

April 25, 2002

NSF sends letter requesting proposals for ETF [14].

April 2002

TCS begins allocated use.

October 10, 2002

NSB approves ETF award to NCSA, SDSC, ANL, Caltech, and PSC [15].

March 11, 2003

NSF issues terascale extensions solicitation [16].

September 29, 2003

NSF awards three terascale extensions to four sites [3].

Academies followed the NSF workshops and identified six components necessary for a high-performance computing environment, including scalable storage and data management and networking [7].

In February 1999, the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) issued a report emphasizing the need for high-performance computing systems to ensure continued US leadership in basic research [8]. Shortly thereafter, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Information Technology for the Twenty First Century (IT2) Working Group developed an implementation plan and timeline for

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

the future of US computing capabilities to be proposed in the President’s FY 2000 budget proposal. Among the deliverables listed in the projected timeline was a combined computing power of 10 teraflops by FY 2001 [9].

In 2000, NSF issued a solicitation for proposals to construct the TCS [10]. An award was made to PSC on August 3, 2000 [1], to construct TCS in partnership with Compaq. In October 2000, a 256-processor prototype system was installed, and it was later made available for allocated use during FY 2001 [11]. The full 3,000-processor system, named LeMieux, was dedicated on October 29, 2001 [12], and began full allocated use in April 2002.

In 2001, NSF issued a second program solicitation to construct a DTF [13]. This competition resulted in an award to NCSA, SDSC, ANL, and the Center for Advanced Computing Research (CACR) at Caltech. The initial DTF, named TeraGrid, included computers capable of 11.6 teraflops, disk-storage systems with capacities of more than 450 terabytes of data, visualization systems, and data collections—all integrated via grid middleware and linked through a high-speed optical network.

NSF entered the next stage of its terascale computing activity in 2002 by making an ETF award to expand the capabilities of the initial DTF sites and to integrate PSC’s LeMieux system [15].

In 2003, NSF made an additional three awards to build on the ETF’s capabilities [17]. The new awards fund the high-speed networking connections needed to share resources at Indiana University, Purdue University, ORNL, and TACC across the ETF infrastructure. Through the new awards, the ETF will put neutron-scattering instruments, large data collections and other unique resources, and additional computing resources within reach of the nation’s research and education community.

References

[1] NSF Press Release (NSF PR00-53), August 3, 2000.

[2] NSF Press Release (NSF PR01-67), August 9, 2001.

[3] NSF Press Release (NSF PR03-107), September 29, 2003.

[4] NSF Blue Ribbon Panel report: From Desktop to Teraflop: Exploiting the US Lead in High Performance Computing, 1993. Quoted in CISE ACIR workshops summary report Terascale and Petascale Computing: Digital Reality in the New Millenium, 1998.

[5] Report of the Task Force on the Future of NSF Supercomputing Centers Program, 1995. Quoted in CISE ACIR workshops summary report Terascale and Petascale Computing: Digital Reality in the New Millenium, 1998.

[6] NSF Press Release (NSF PR 97-27), March 28, 1997.

[7] Department of Energy/National Science Foundation “National Workshop on Advanced Scientific Computation,” National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. July 30-31, 1998.

[8] PITAC report. Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future. February 24, 1999.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

[9] NSTC IT2 Working Group implementation plan. Information Technology for the Twenty-First Century: A Bold Investment in America’s Future, June 1999.

[10] Terascale Computing System, Program Solicitation (NSF 00-29) December 29, 1999.

[11] PSC News Release, January 29, 2001.

[12] PSC News Release, October 29, 2001.

[13] Distributed Terascale Facility, Program Solicitation (NSF 01-51), January 18, 2001.

[14] NSF Dear Colleague Letter on ETF (NSF 02-119), April 25, 2002.

[15] NCSA Press Release, October 10, 2002. SDSC Press Release, October 10, 2002.

[16] Terascale Extensions: Enhancements to the Extensible Terascale Facility (NSF 03-553), March 11, 2003.

[17] NSF Press Release (NSF PR 03-107) September 29, 2003.

[18] NSF Fact Sheet. From Supercomputing to Teragrid, September 2003.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Histories of Projects Funded by NSF." National Research Council. 2004. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10895.
×
Page 146
Next: Appendix D: Approval Processes in Other Agencies and Other Countries »
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $69.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In 1995, the National Science Foundation (NSF) created a special account to fund large (several tens of millions of dollars) research facilities. Over the years, these facilities have come to represent an increasingly prominent part of the nation's R&D portfolio. Recently concern has intensified about the way NSF is selecting projects for this account. In 2003, six U.S. Senators including the chair and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations expressed these concerns in a letter to the NRC asking it to "review the current prioritization process and report to us on how it can be improved." This report presents a series of recommendations on how NSF can improve its priority setting process for large research facilities. While noting that NSF has improved this process, the report states that further strengthening is needed if NSF is to meet future demands for such projects.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!