Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 1

• The B-factory ceased operations in April. For the first time in its history, SLAC has no accelerator-based experiment in HEP running on-site.
•
The dominant program of the laboratory has shifted from HEP to BES funding.
• The focus of global particle physics research has moved to CERN with the turnon of the Large Hadron Collider.
• The ILC, planned to be the next big facility for this field, and the previous focus of SLAC’s anticipated program in collider-based particle physics, faces significant and uncertain delays.
• We took a major budget hit in HEP funding in 2008, and the situation is still unclear for 2009 given the possibility of an extended continuing resolution.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 2

• Review of recent developments in the on-going program.
• The P5 Report, and its alignment with SLAC initiatives.
• Issues arising from the SLAC program review and the review of theory programs at the national labs.
• The budget planning through 2010, and priorities for near-term spending.
• What is the right size asymptotically for SLAC’s HEP program?
• Concluding remarks.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 3

•
We had to terminate the B-factory operations early in April of this year, due to the severe budget hit that came out of the omnibus bill.
•
Nevertheless, the program ran flawlessly, with higher than expected luminosity for the 3+ months of running.
• The physics analysis efforts have also been extremely impressive, leading to the very quick discovery of the

B
, among other results.
•
A very successful B-factory symposium was held in October, reviewing the highlights of the program.
• FY09 and FY10 will be devoted to the “intense analysis phase”. We are fully committed to enabling this activity in support of the planned analyses. Beyond FY10, there has been discussion of steady-state and, eventually, an archival analysis phase, but the details still need to be worked out.
• BaBar D&D has begun in earnest and will become a significant activity in FY09.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 4


Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 5

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 6

• The launch finally occurred in June, leading to a very successful LEO phase of the program.
• GLAST officially renamed the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope at the “first light” press conference in August.
• The LAT is performing flawlessly.
• The ISOC has also been extremely impressive, maintaining and exceeding its planned turn-around rates for turning telemetry bits into science.
• FGST results will be highlighted at a series of upcoming conferences, including the upcoming APS April Meeting in Denver, which will highlight the 400th
Anniversary of the invention of the telescope.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 7

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 8

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 9

•
The ILC program was sharply reduced partway through FY08. We had to curtail some
ILC-specific activities, and transfer personnel into more generic accelerator R&D.
•
The program has been reinstated at about $35M in FY09, with roughly $10M slated for
SLAC.
•
SLAC leads the R&D effort on rf sources and pioneering new technologies:
– Marx modulators
– Sheet beam klystrons
– Advanced rf distribution systems and couplers
• We also play key roles in the beam delivery and the electron source systems.
•
On the detector side, SLAC is playing a lead role in the R&D effort for the SiD concept, supporting both simulation and design activities, as well as technology development.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 10

•
SLAC personnel are playing key roles in the commissioning of the ATLAS detector at
CERN, in both the pixel system and the trigger. We are also providing support to sort out problems with the CSC RODs, a critical component of the detector. Of course, we are also preparing for physics analysis.
•
We are trying to grow the ATLAS effort to become the major program in accelerator-based particle physics at SLAC. Significant growth is planned for Phase 1 commissioning and analysis, participation in the ATLAS upgrade efforts, and expansion of ATLAS computing at SLAC.
• However, DOE OHEP has not given us blanket approval to redirect personnel onto this program. We need to justify our expansion in the context of overall planning for US
ATLAS and the ATLAS consortium as a whole.
• We submitted a “white paper” detailing our proposed future ATLAS efforts at the end of
September. Discussions with DOE and US ATLAS have been ongoing. This situation is still in flux and it is unclear how it will play out.
•
David MacFarlane will present an overview of the content of the white paper in the following talk.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 11

•
Italy is studying the construction of a SuperB facility with 100 times the luminosity the present B-factory.
• This will vastly improve the sensitivity for the discovery of quantum loop corrections to standard model processes, indicative of new physics at the TeV scale and beyond. Such data will be especially helpful to the interpretation of discoveries anticipated from the
LHC.
• SLAC personnel have played leading roles in helping to define the requirements for such a machine, and the provision of parts from PEP-II and BaBar would dramatically reduce the cost of construction. US in-kind contributions to the project are essential to its viability, as will US accelerator and detector involvement should the project proceed.
• An official request for components of PEP-II for reuse in SuperB was sent to SLAC in
June. Persis sent a response in September indicating willingness to pursue this possibility with appropriate defraying of cost for dismantling and shipping.
•
SLAC is devoting LDRD money to Super B studies in FY09.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 12

• LSST is still in an R&D phase. Discussions with DOE have indicated support for this program if and when NSF moves ahead as the lead agency.
• The fabrication of the primary/tertiary mirror for the telescope is in progress using private funding from
Charles Simonyi and Bill Gates ($30M combined).
• However, the process has been stalled to some degree by the “decadal survey process” in astronomy and astrophysics, which has only just started. NSF has indicated that they cannot seek formal approval for LSST until and unless it is given high priority by the new decadal survey committee
(chaired by RB).
• Nevertheless, we are on track for Preliminary Design Review in mid to late Spring 2009. The
Conceptual Design Review, held in Sept 2007, was very successful.
• Significant progress has been made in the camera R&D, with both DOE support and private funding to
SLAC from Eric and Wendy Schmidt ($1.3M).
• SLAC has also been pioneering the development extremely large database (XLDB) systems required for LSST data management. A partnership has been created with leading database researchers, included signficant anticipated funding from commercial sources ($5M).
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 13

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 14

• EXO-200 TPC should be delivered to WIPP in January.
• The experiment will then begin to transition into operations.
• Planning is underway for expansion into “full EXO”, presumably in connection with DUSEL, but the timescale for this opportunity is still very uncertain.
• Some preliminary discussions have been held with LBNL over the possibility of a LBNL/SLAC partnership in supporting the smaller physics experiments at DUSEL: neutrinoless double beta decay and direct detection of dark matter.
• The S4 solicitation for R&D on DUSEL experiments is currently in progress.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 15

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 16

• The JDEM program was recently significantly revamped. There will no longer be a “competition” between competing concepts. A “science coordinating group” has been formed to flesh out the requirements for a single concept, and then NASA will develop that concept.
• DOE will participate through a commitment to design, build, and deliver a specific component of that payload, scoped roughly at the level of $200M. DOE has established a project office at LBNL to oversee this activity.
• It is still likely that SLAC will have a major role in electronics for the the DOE contributed subsystem. Other technical roles remain to be worked out, when the nature of the payload and the DOE deliverable are better determined.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 17

• A specific proposal for FACET has been developed over the past year, and has been reviewed by DOE in competition with the BELLA proposal from LBNL.
•
The emphasis has been steered to the development of the beam-driven plasma wakefield concept, leading to its applications toward a TeV-scale e+e- collider.
• We are still awaiting the official outcome of that review. If positive, construction could start in FY09, although that will require additional funding.
• At the November HEPAP meeting, Dennis Kovar stated that he intended to move forward with the “Advanced Plasma Accelerator Facility”, but that it would be delayed until after CR.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 18

3 GeV demonstrator
FACET phase 2
FACET consists of:
Accelerator Science Facility (ASF) (Sector 20) e+ bunch compressor (Sector 10)
Future ESA test beams:
Spent beam from LCLS-undulator 2
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 19

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 20

• In November of 2007 the DOE and the NSF asked HEPAP to reconvene the P5 panel.
• Charge to the Panel: Develop a 10 year plan for US Particle Physics under various DOE funding scenarios:
– A. Constant effort at the FY2008 level( 688 FY08 M$ DOE )
– B. Constant effort at the FY2007 level( 752 FY07 M$ DOE )
– C. Doubling of budget over 10 years starting with FY2007
– D. Additional funding above the previous level, associated with specific activities needed to mount a leadership program
• The Panel was also briefed on the status of NSF fiscal planning. The plan described here assumes approval of the DUSEL MREFC proposal and continued funding of the NSF university program.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 21

• Addressing the central questions of the field requires a broad program of research using a variety of tools and techniques that we broadly classify into three interrelated frontiers :
– The Energy Frontier , using high-energy colliders to discover new particles and directly probe the properties of nature.
– The Intensity Frontier , using intense beams to uncover the elusive properties of neutrinos and observe rare processes that probe physics beyond the Standard Model.
– The Cosmic Frontier , revealing the natures of dark matter and dark energy and using high-energy particles from space to probe the architecture of the universe.
• These three frontiers form an interlocking framework that addresses fundamental questions about the laws of nature and the cosmos.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 22

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 23

• Our future planning for PPA is well-aligned to the priorities enunciated by P5:
– Expanded ATLAS involvement, both in Phase I and the upgrade.
– Potential significant role in SuperB.
– Leadership of LSST, and important support role in JDEM for dark energy research.
– Leadership role in EXO for neutrinoless double-beta decay.
– Leading role in Accelerator R&D, including ILC, High Gradient (X-band), and advanced accelerator concepts (e.g. plasma wakefield).
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 24

ATLAS
TeV e+e-
Colllider R&D
SuperB
EXO
Project X
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 25
LSST
JDEM
Particle
Astro

•
In previous years, DOE-
OHEP has conducted annual “program reviews” of each of the laboratories, on-site, where all HEP-funded activity at that site is reviewed by a single committee of consultants.
• In the future, this will only be done on an annual basis for Fermilab. The other labs
(LBNL, BNL, ANL, and SLAC), will rotate, with one on-site review every four years.
However, SLAC was chosen to be the first of the four, so we had our first review in this new system this past July.
• The report was not received until late October. It compliments the Laboratory in a number of areas, but also highlights some concerns:
– “It is unclear whether SLAC can maintain world class programs in HEP and BES simultaneously given the lab’s physical size and personnel constraints.”
– “Furthermore, the lower than expected funding for the OHEP has caused unexpected contractions of the lab’s HEP scope and personnel, and these cutbacks may adversely affect the lab’s performance in the future.”
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 26

Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 27

• In the new system, the lab-wide program reviews are supplemented by reviews of specific research efforts (B&R codes), where the activities in a research area at all the labs are reviewed by a common committee in or around Germantown.
• There are six such research efforts:
– Proton-accelerator based research (KA11)
– Electron-accelerator based research (KA12)
– Non-accelerator research (KA13)
– Theory (KA14)
– Accelerator Science (KA15)
– Detector R&D (KA15)
• There will be two areas reviewed per year, so each effort is reviewed across the complex once every three years.
• The first two such reviews were for Theory, held in July, and for Accelerator Science, held earlier this week.
• We received the report of the Theory Review just last week.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 28

• The review covered programs in the SLAC Theory Group (ST), which does research in theoretical high energy physics, including phenomenology, model building, and formal theory, and the KIPAC Theory
Group (KT), which does research in cosmology and particle astrophysics.
• Both groups were praised in the report. In fact, the ST Group was rated the strongest of the theory groups at all the labs, and ranked among the top theory groups in the nation overall. It was described as unique in its ability “to bridge formal theory, collider phenomenology, and cosmology and astroparticle physics”.
• However, there were also concerns:
–
With SLAC taking a smaller role in the national experimental program, some committee members felt that with time the ST would more closely resemble a university group, making it difficult to justify the much higher cost incurred by theory groups at national labs.
–
The activities of the KT were judged to have an emphasis primarily on conventional astronomy and astrophysics, with less direct impact on the four thrust areas of the OHEP theory program.
• These comments question some of the basic assumptions we have always held dear concerning the nature of theoretical physics at SLAC, and we will have to adjust our thinking in that context. We are currently discussing a response to this report.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 29

FY 2007-2010 Total M$ by Cost Type
PPA Directorate
160
140
120
M
$
100
80
60
40
20
0
FY07 FY08 FY09
Labor M &S Linac Ops, Incl. ASD
FY10
FY 2007-2010 Total M$ by Division
PPA Directorate
160
140
120
100
M
$
80
60
40
20
0
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
PPA DPS Prgrm GPP/AIP ARD EPP KIPAC Linac Ops, Incl. ASD
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 30

•
Despite our desire to get some new programs going, our priorities will have to remain similar to what they were last year - operations, projects, R&D:
– BaBar Intense Analysis and BaBar D&D.
– FGST. Highest priority is for operations, but exploiting the science opportunity is clearly important.
– ATLAS. We want and need to make ATLAS work, as a key element of our future program.
– Accelerator R&D. This will become better defined in the coming year, but electron accelerator r&d is the key core competency at SLAC and must be maintained.
– LSST, EXO, JDEM, FACET. These are the future initiatives in various stages of development. We have invested heavily in them already.
– New(er) initatives. There are a lot of ideas out there (some good). We do not want to stifle creativity. We will do what we can within the confines of our budget constraints. The newly inaugurated LDRD program provides a vehicle for supporting fledgling efforts of this kind.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 31

• In recent years, Fermilab and SLAC have dominated the HEP funding at national laboratories. This followed naturally from the fact that these were the only two labs operating on-site facilities for particle physics experiments: Fermilab for proton-based accelerator research, and SLAC for electron-based accelerator research. Both have been user labs with large user communities.
• The labs that do not operate on-site facilities have considerably smaller HEP programs, between 1/3 and 1/4 the size of SLAC in terms of funding per year. Is it appropriate for SLAC to remain at its present size in comparison to these other labs?
• The underlying assumptions behind the current size of the SLAC research program are:
–
SLAC should maintain its active status as a user laboratory, albeit primarily serving off-site experiments;
– SLAC should maintain unique core engineering and technical capabilities that are the foundation for future major construction projects by the US community; and
– SLAC can and should continue to host the nations premier accelerator science and R&D capability for electron machines.
• We aim to develop an effective user-lab paradigm for the following programs, as they move forward:
–
BaBar - Host for intensive analysis and eventual archival analysis phases.
– FGST - Host of the ISOC for the LAT.
–
FACET and High Gradient - Host of experiments, greater on-side presence by university affiliates.
– ATLAS - West coast physics analysis center.
– LSST - Data access center for the high energy physics community.
–
SuperB - Coordinating laboratory for US participation in the program.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 32

•
We have received strong support from our existing user community (SLUO) for this plan.
• However, there are serious issues for each case:
– BaBar: The size of the user base will decline as collaborators move on to newer running experiments.
– FGST: The LAT collaboration is a mix of scientists and with particle physics and space astrophysics backgrounds. The astrophysicists have less of a culture of coordinating their efforts though a single “user laboratory”. To the extent that it has occurred at all, NASA’s Goddard Space
Flight Center, a collaborating institution on the FGST LAT, has played this role.
– FACET and High Gradient: Not a strong history in this community of extended on-site presence.
FACET is not yet an approved project.
– ATLAS: The benefit of establishing remote physics analysis centers for the LHC experiments is still controversial in the US high energy physics community. While it is clear that it will not be practical for US groups to be resident at CERN at the level they have become accustomed to for previous collider experiments, there is still debate about whether it is preferable to send their students and postdocs to a “satellite site” in the US, or simply to keep them resident on their home campuses.
– LSST: The main archival center will be at NCSA in Urbana. Again the astrophysicists involved in the project are unaccustomed to coordinating their analysis efforts through a user laboratory.
– SuperB: Still unclear whether this project will happen in Italy, and whether there will be a significant US role, even if the project does move forward.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 33

• One can also arrive at an asymptotic budget from the ground up, by looking at the projected program over the next decade, and evaluating what it will cost.
• This is the basis that underlies the budget profiles we have delivered to OHEP over the past year. By construction, the program maintains the SLAC HEP effort roughly at its current size because this is what we believe it will take to pursue the identified exciting science opportunities, not just to “keep ourselves in business”. The core capabilities behind taking on these projects lead to a “right-sizing” for the SLAC HEP program.
• The proposed program involves the following major projects:
– ATLAS, including a large role in the upgrade.
– LSST, lead role in the camera fabrication and a support role in data management.
–
JDEM, support role for payload electronics.
– FACET, and a follow-on accelerator test facility for evaluating high gradient concepts.
– ILC, continuing role in the R&D, roughly at a constant level.
• Is this feasible? All of these projects are supported by P5, and are in consideration for DOE approval, dependent on how the national budget evolves. In our view, it would be premature to deemphasize any of the R&D efforts based on the supposition that our budget must decline .
• If other large projects move forward, e.g. full-up EXO or SuperB, we will need to make choices. Our priorities have been made clear to DOE: ATLAS, LSST, High Gradient R&D. But the ultimate decisions will depend on the national prioritization process.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 34

• The transition at SLAC is occurring at a critical juncture in U.S. high energy physics. It will be a challenge to ensure that the PPA effort remains vital as both the Laboratory and the field evolve.
• Our future program will no longer be focused around on-site accelerator-based experiments. We have made a case that SLAC can continue to serve as a major user laboratory for the community, providing key services that enable university and foreign involvement in forefront HEP experiments. However, we are aware of some of the possible issues with this strategy - it is an untried experiment.
• The future program we have proposed is well-aligned with the P5 report and current DOE-OHEP priorities. Its viability will depend on the national prioritization processes, but we are prepared to make tough choices if given the opportunity by the agency.
Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA
Page 35