Transcript FY 2008 Proposed Budget ($2.776 Trillion OL) R&D = 13% of discretionary spending Mandatory Spending Discretionary Spending Net Interest 8.5% Defense 17.7% Defense R&D 2.8% Social Security 20.9% Other Mandatory 11.5% Total R&D = $139B Non-Def. 16% Medicaid 7.3% Medicare 13.3% $79B DoD+DHS Non-Def. R&D 2% $60B Non-Security.

FY 2008 Proposed Budget ($2.776 Trillion OL)
R&D = 13% of discretionary spending
Mandatory Spending
Discretionary Spending
Net
Interest
8.5%
Defense
17.7%
Defense
R&D
2.8%
Social
Security
20.9%
Other
Mandatory
11.5%
Total R&D = $139B
Non-Def.
16%
Medicaid
7.3%
Medicare
13.3%
$79B DoD+DHS
Non-Def.
R&D
2%
$60B Non-Security
Fraction of R&D in FY2007 Approps. Bills
R&D
100%
$419B
$49B
$32B $32B
$18B
Non-R&D
$50B
$30B
$19B
$26B $144B
$23B
$48B
80%
60%
40%
20%
Appropriations Committee
T,
H
UD
ch
DO
Le
g
B
ra
n
S,
Ed
HH
ir
or
,
En
v
Se
rv
er
Fi
n
In
t&
La
b
En
e
rg
y
&
W
at
CJ
S
Ag
S
DH
ig
n
O
ps
O
N
,F
or
e
IL
C
St
a
te
VA
,M
Do
D
0%
Some Trends for Large Scientific Projects/Facilities

More are recommended than could be funded under the most optimistic budget
scenarios (by factors of 2-4).

Non-traditional fields are also proposing large facilities and are real competition for
resources.

Chronic tension between new and existing facilities and between facilities and
program research budgets.

Projects are ever more technically complex and challenging
•
•

Budgets are tight and the budget process is increasingly political
•
•

Congress does not have a good track record in passing approps bills on time – CRs and
Omnibus can have significant impacts.
Careful matching between project design/scope and scientific motivations (i.e. will not
build a Cadillac when a Chevy will do.)
Increasing numbers of interagency, international projects
•
•

Premium on project management
Cost overruns erode credibility of the agency, program, PIs to deliver.
Hard Lessons Learned from GLAST, RSVP
Plethora of lessons learned from international projects
The path for public-private partnerships is not well defined
Influences Change as Projects Evolve
Project Definition
Preliminary
Design
Construction
Operations
1
1750
0.8
Influence (Risk)
INFLUENCE (Risk)
Total Costs
0.6
1250
1000
750
0.4
500
0.2
250
0
0
S&T Policy
Sciecntific Merit
Technical Risks
Scientific Value
Project Costs
Budget Process
Project Mgmt
Budget Process
Agency Ops Policy
Project Mgmt
Program Budget
Strong Agency/Program Support, Strong Project Socialization
Total Accrued Cost ($M)
1500
2008 Election Opportunity: How Should You Prepare?
Executive Branch
• White House
-
•
Agencies
-
•
OMB will not change at the staff level – PADs and higher
OSTP could be significantly re-directed. Complete change of staff
Vice President and the Domestic Policy Council are also key
positions.
NSF little impact. NASA and DOE certain to be affected
NASA and DOE Agency Leadership for science are crucial
- NASA: US Space Policy re-visit?
- DOE: ACI, Energy R&D overshadow discovery-oriented science?
Engagement strategy for the election:
-
Follow the campaigns, who is advising on science?
Have an agenda for transition: once the election is over, the facility
Directors should band together to provide their input qualities for new
leadership at the Agency
Who are potential candidates for leadership positions at the agency?
Legislative Branch
-
ALL politics are local – work with research VPs/community to educate
newly elected officials about budget impacts within NASA or DOE on
research at institutions in their home district
Hill Staff will play musical chairs
The Decadal Survey
Comments:
•
Sets priorities - still too many projects Is this a good or a bad thing?
•
Provides an estimate of cost –
Actual cost is usually higher
•
No technical readiness discussion Provide a sense of ordering
•
Does not say anything about existing
facilities
Discussion:
•
Would evaluation of TRL help with needed
phasing information?
•
Only cost projects that are ready for a start
within the next decade?
•
For each project, provide some
recommendation regarding needed
investments (tech, PED, start)?
•
Revisit readiness about mid-way?