| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 77
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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:
ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter Array
79
EarthScope
84
Gemini Observatories
89
HIAPER (High-Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research)
92
IceCube
96
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
99
LHC (Large Hadron Collider)
104
LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory)
109
NEES (George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation)
117
NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network)
122
OOI (Ocean Observatories Initiative)
128
Polar Support Aircraft Upgrades
132
Polar Cap Observatory
134
RSVP (Rare Symmetry Violating Processes)
135
SPSE (South Pole Safety and Environmental Project)
138
SPSM (South Pole Station Modernization)
138
Terascale Computing Projects
141
OCR for page 78
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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).
OCR for page 79
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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-
OCR for page 80
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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].
OCR for page 81
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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.
OCR for page 82
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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].
OCR for page 83
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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].
OCR for page 84
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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.
OCR for page 85
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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].
OCR for page 86
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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.
OCR for page 87
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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
OCR for page 136
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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
OCR for page 137
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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.
OCR for page 138
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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
OCR for page 139
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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].
OCR for page 140
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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
OCR for page 141
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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
OCR for page 142
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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
OCR for page 143
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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
OCR for page 144
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
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.
OCR for page 145
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
[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.
OCR for page 146
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation
This page intentionally left blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
mrefc funding
Items in cart [4]
