92 



have been awarded as planned and are within the expected estimates. The civil con- 

 struction remains to be contracted. 



The total cost of construction will remain at $272.1 million. The increased funding 

 in FY 1997, from $55 million to $70 million, will preserve contract flexibility and 

 reduce the risk of delays in the construction schedule. First, the increase will enable 

 the civil construction to be offered in large packages which will provide optimal effi- 

 ciency. Second, prompt initiation and funding of contractor activities will reduce 

 costs and schedule risks arising from contractor delays which limit performance on 

 other contractors. The current funding schedule has the estimated FY 1998 costs at 

 $11.2 million, reduced from $26.2 million. The $15 million reduction offsets the in- 

 crease in FY 1997. 



PROGRESS OF GEMINI TELESCOPE PROJECT 



QUESTION: How is the GEMINI telescope project moving ahead? What is 

 the status of the international cost-sharing issue? Does NSF have any con- 

 cerns about the international partners not being able to meet their finan- 

 cial obligations? 



ANSWER: Construction of Gemini telescopes is proceeding according to schedule 

 and cost estimates. The first primary mirror blank was shipped to the polisher in 

 France in November 1995. The second blank was successfully fused at Corning in 

 February 1996. Civil construction is well under way at both the Mauna Kea, Hawaii 

 and Cerro Pachon, Chile sites. 



Contributions from Brazil, Canada, and the U.K. are up to date. As of April 1, 

 1996, Chile and Argentina are technically in default of the Gemini Agreement with 

 respect to their 1995 contribution. However, in both cases, we are optimistic that 

 they will continue to participate and meet their obligations: 



• In Chile, legislation to satisfy conditions placed on the 1995 and 1996 appropria- 



tions by the Chilean Congress is currently under discussion. While there has 

 been no sign from that body of any ill will towards Gemini, there are complex 

 issues — such as mining rights — connected with other projects that have slowed 

 passage. The President of CONICYT (NSF's Chilean equivalent) has been given 

 personal assurances by President Frei of Chile that commitment will be hon- 

 ored. 



• In Argentina, there is also a great deal of enthusiasm for the project. Payment of 



the 1995 Argentine contribution has been held up by an internal discussion be- 

 tween the office of the Secretary of Science and Technology and CONICET 

 (NSF's Argentine equivalent) as to how the payments should be handled be- 

 tween the two offices. We expect that this will be clarified within the next 

 month. 



SUPPORT FOR LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH FACILITIES 



QUESTION: With these tight budget times and as we look at NSF's budget 

 we find about 20-25% of the budget goes to large-scale research facilities — 

 telescopes, research vessels, university-based physics facilities — these 

 large-scale facilities could represent some pretty significant fixed cost for 

 the Foundation as budgets get tighter. How do you plan to deal with the 

 issue? Do you anticipate having to terminate support for some of these fa- 

 cilities and if so, what process will you use to help make these decisions? 



ANSWER: NSF recognizes the challenges ahead and places a high priority on 

 maintaining support for both individual and small groups of researchers and for 

 large user facilities. Each is a critical component for ensuring the health of the U.S. 

 science and engineering enterprise. 



NSF has scrutinized its major research facilities very carefully during the past 

 year. We have put in place a process, involving NSF senior management and the 

 National Science Board, for dealing both with existing research facilities and with 

 requests for development of new or refurbished facilities. 



As noted in the FY 1997 Budget Request, we expect to keep research facilities at 

 approximately 20-25 percent of the total NSF program budget. This will be done to 

 maintain an appropriate balance across NSF's key program functions and to enable 

 the construction of new world-class facilities that will advance human knowledge 

 further. Individual programs are dealing with the research facilities they support. 

 Some are being upgraded or reoriented now so that operating costs will be lower 

 in the future. Others may be terminated or funding reduced. The facilities to be 

 closed will be those of lower priority, as determined by the quality of research being 

 done at the facilities, their role in keeping the U.S. at the forefront in science, the 

 opportunities they provide for educating and training the next generation of sci- 



