ORION - Portland STAC meeting on Program reortg Inflation - 5% was Doug's pick 6% is Alex's number Capped at $50 M for O&M in 2013 Using $309.5 M as the ORION funds and 5% inflation in as spent dollars during the program until 2012 (funding line from Alex) equates to 258.5M in 2006 dollars at 5% inflation to 249.7M in 2006 at 6% inflation Alex reqesuted a $10M in as spent dollars at the end (subtract from $309 M) $15M contingency for ORION Project Office in as spent dollars ($2.5m / yr for 6 years) Kendra - eliminates positions in future Stu - peak is in year 4 and 5 so, this is questionable flux Includes all of the meetings and workshops - committees $30M for CI including contingency 40 people per year being requested (approximately 5M per year for 6 years) Is CI reducing their budget by the 16.5% to 19.4% due to as spent dollars $5M for E&O - (1M/yr for 6 years) $6.2 M for EIR/EOS for RCO & CSO Total to subtract = $66.2M then convert to 2006 dollars assuming either 5 or 6% =================================================================================== Therefore the working range of the OOI is $195M to $229M (in 2006 dollars) Low end assumes 6% inflation and $309.5M as spent High end assumes 5% inflation and $350M as spent The numbers from before included dev, cables, proomary and secondary nodes, moorings, fixed platforms, winches, mobile platforms, core instrumentation, and installation The added costs previously not considered Commissioning ($4M in 2006), Proj managemnet 10% for IO's, 20% for contingency, surveying $6.6M in 2006 dollars, shore landings and stations ($10.4 M) ================================================================================== Taking out the above items leaves about $122M to $146M which compares to the previous amount of $160 we had used for RCO($90M), Global($30), Coastal($40) which equates to a 24% worst case and 9% best case reduction. New budegt ranges to work with (down from revious budget range of $253.3M) $195M to $229M RCO - $113.5M to $133.3M (23.1% to 9.7% reduction from $147.5M of before) Coastal - $46.2M to $54.3M (23.0% to 9.5% reduction from $60.0M of before) Global - $35.3M to $41.4M (22.9% to 9.6% reductino from $45.8M of before) ================================================================================= Considerations: RCO has included some costs in O&M - nodes installation ship time, ROV laid cables ship time ot deploy instruments. Ops costs will be incurred in the MREFC process when science nodes are brought up and network grows. ?? Deb K cleared up this was intended to be small extension cables and the like which are PI science driven Revisit core instrumentation - Doug believes it is completely at risk to make things happen. RE-revaluate contingency rather than applying 20% flat. 10%, 20% and 30% ranges maybe? RCO - cut Stage I to Stage II connection (OSC sanctioned), cut plans to augment Stage I Make use of IOOS to reduce costs of OOI, means getting knowledge of IOOS to be a reliable backbone to supporting ORION and saving sensors funds etc. Per Kendra - all of our planning has to be stand alone. NSF is saying (per Julie Morris) that "core" instruments will be included. ======================================================================================= After deduction of $2.5M / yr for ORION office etc. 2013 dollarsd are $44M approx in 2006 gives $31.6 at 5% inflation $29.6 at 6% inflation using the current O&M from CND... totals are $55M (RCO $22M, CSO $18M, and GSO $14.6M) total cut required is 43% keeping RCO, CSO, and GSO Considerations: PI is responsible for instrumentation, deploying, ship time etc. - cannot get it from ORION O&M - O&M costs should be included in proposal. For example state their O&M costs will support amountd of non-core instruments Can this be removed?? Assumptions for replacement costs: Keith Moorings - 3 year for surface and subsurface (Dan used 2 for surface and 3 subsurface) ============= ORION OFFICE INPUT from OSC ================================ High priority of new and transformative technologies - interactive, real-time science questions that require this infrastructure why can't science be accomplished by the existing technology minimize life cycle costs Revised CND's must pass the Test of Excellence of Science ?? there will be a National Science Board review All elements must be retained (CSO, RCO, and GSO) Maintain appropriate balance between high risk elements and lower risk Maintain balance of fixed and mobile assets Consider the minimum funding possiblity of a NW Pacific multi-scale regional observatory involving all components Four Scenarios: 1) Re-eval and descope CND individually 2) prioritize all 3 elements together 3) concentrate all assets in PNW including elements of each 4) completely cut one component CSO or GSO - considered a non-starter by OSC This is not a rewrite of the CND's but recommended changes to the CND's i) takes into account the fiscal constraints ii) reitereates the transforming technologies and capabilities iii) reiterate outstanding high priority science the REQUIRES OOI a) clearly articulates teh science being lost Scenario 1 - Reccommend descope plan for each component list technologies not general, specific and direct ... explicit specify exact locations REQUIRED specify how science would be crippled by loss of site ====================== Transforming Tech and Capabilities ============================= Coastal - AUV's w/docking for adaptive sampling profiling moorings RCO - GSO -