Trip Report: NSF SAVI Visit April 4th 2012
Richard Prestage April 9th 2012
Executive Summary
NSF responded very positively to our RFI-mitigation related SAVI proposal. We were encouraged to
submit a white paper by April 20th, with a full proposal due by mid-May. We were also encouraged to
submit a separate EARS proposal in June. A SAVI proposal to foster a US-Chile virtual Science Center
would not be favorably received, since these collaborations should take place within the current
management structure.
Details
On Wednesday 4th April Prestage, O’Neil and Heatherly visited the NSF for a discussion of a potential RFI
related SAVI Proposal. NSF staff present included Jim Ulvestad (AST Director) Dana Lehr (representing
Phil Puxley as NRAO Program Officer), Jennifer Slimowitz Pearl (MPS SAVI contact), Andy Clegg (EARS
Program Manager) and Tom Gergely (Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Program Manager). The
meeting lasted one hour.
The NRAO staff gave a brief overview of the proposal, based on the short NRAO internal white paper.
The overall response was very positive. There followed a general question and answer session, where
the following points were made:
We were encouraged to proceed, and were requested to submit a 3-4 page white paper to NSF by Friday
20th April.
NSF noted that the timescales for FY2012 funding is short; this is a potential advantage if end-of-year
money becomes available. The deadline for the full proposal for FY2012 was stated as mid-May.
Ulvestad and Pearl were confident that that NRAO is eligible for a SAVI proposal as a supplement to the
co-operative agreement, but Pearl will confirm this. There was some discussion as to what makes
something a SAVI proposal. Pearl responded that SAVI is intended to provide the “glue” to enable new
international collaborations to work together, and “if AST Division considers the proposal a SAVI, then it
is a SAVI”.
Pearl noted that international partners must explicitly “bring something to the table”.
Ulvestad specifically encouraged including LOFAR in the proposed consortium.
We noted that NRAO had additional ideas for potential SAVI proposals. Ulvestad noted that, with ALMA,
a strong US-Chile collaboration already exists. Therefore a SAVI proposal, intended to initiate new
collaborations, would not be appropriate for this area.
Clegg noted that we should submit both a SAVI proposal and an EARS proposal, with each one targeted
appropriately to the goals of the different programs.
Gergely emphasized the need for the proposal to stand on its radio astronomy merits; Ulvestad and
Clegg noted it would also be vital to be able to sell the proposal outside of radio astronomy, and broader
impact should be considered in this respect. Two areas considered very legitimate as broader impact
were propagation/summation of wireless signals, and remote sensing.
The educational project as described was considered rather disjoint from the rest of the proposal; this
will need more work.
The SAVI proposal would be reviewed by people nominated by Andy Clegg / Tom Gergely; these would
not only be astronomers.
We were encouraged by Tom Gergely to contact Dale Gary at NJIT.
We were recommended to find an “appropriate” industry contact to advise on broader impact issues,
although precisely who/how to proceed on this was rather uncertain.
Actions




Contact Gary Brown (Virginia Tech) as potential collaborator
Contact Dale Gary (NJIT) as potential collaborator
Complete White Paper for internal distribution by Wednesday 18th April, submission to NSF by
Friday 20th April.
In parallel, confirm interest of potential international partners: LOFAR (Netherlands), SRT (Italy),
ATNF (Australia), SASPO (South Africa).