Report From NSAC
2012 Committee
Robert Atcher
LANL
Peter Jacobs
LBNL
Jamie Nagle
Colorado
Jeffrey Binder
ORNL
David Kaplan
Washington
Kenneth Nash (ACS)
Washington State
Jeffery Blackmon
Louisiana State
Joshua Klein
Pennsylvania
Allena Opper
George Washington
Gail Dodge
Old Dominion
Karlheinz Langanke
GSI
Jorge Piekarewicz
Florida State
Alexandra Gade
Michigan State
Zheng-tian Lu
ANL
Julia Velkovska
Vanderbilt
Susan Gardner
Kentucky
Robert McKeown
Jefferson Lab
Rajagopal Venugopalin
BNL
Donald Geesaman (Chair) Curtis Meyer
ANL
Carnegie Mellon
Current Program
• Running programs at RHIC, NSCL, ATLAS, LHC
and university facilities. STAR Heavy Flavor
Tracker being assembled. CARIBU getting 0.5
Ci source this summer.
• JLAB 6 GeV running completed. 12 GeV
construction ~60% complete
• FRIB funding in 2nd year.
• Majorana demonstrator in progress and
neutron EDM R&D continuing. CUORE
equipment funding complete in 2012.
The 2013 President’s Budget Request brings challenges
FY12 NP down 3.5% from FY11 and NSCL held flat
FY13 expect about flat
From Dr. Brinkman’s and Dr. Hallman’s
slides
Budget process
• House E&W Committee markup added 21 M$ to
Presidents request
• Senate Committee added $13M to President’s request.
• Likely there will only be a continuing resolution this
year, not a budget bill so not clear what happens.
• Both markup’s contained language about NSAC review
to inform priorities for the future.
• If “Sequestration” (part of debt limit increase
legislation) occurs, could be significant further cuts
Underground Lab – now in the hands of HEP at DOE
Observations
projecting based on previous charges
• NSAC has repeatedly answered charges like this before
including 1985, 1992 and 2005. In 2005 we named a facility
to close in the event of declining budgets, but the tide of
research budgets changed. By 2006-2007 there was the
expectation of a doubling of R&D budgets.
• We are not asked to do new Long Range Plan but we need to
take into account progress, both in the U.S. and
internationally.
• 2013 budget followed by flat-flat budgets through 2018
represent an effective $86M/year cut from FY2012 budget
(depending on estimates of inflation).
The 2007 Long Range Plan
Recommendations of the 2007 NSAC Long Range Plan
Recommendation I
• We recommend completion of the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade at Jefferson Lab. The
Upgrade will enable new insights into the structure of the nucleon, the
transition between the hadronic and quark/gluon descriptions of nuclei, and the
nature of confinement.
Recommendation II
• We recommend construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), a
world-leading facility for the study of nuclear structure, reactions, and
astrophysics. Experiments with the new isotopes produced at FRIB will lead to a
comprehensive description of nuclei, elucidate the origin of the elements in the
cosmos, provide an understanding of matter in the crust of neutron stars, and
establish the scientific foundation for innovative applications of nuclear science
to society.
Recommendation III
• We recommend a targeted program of experiments to investigate neutrino
properties and fundamental symmetries. These experiments aim to discover the
nature of the neutrino, yet-unseen violations of time-reversal symmetry, and
other key ingredients of the New Standard Model of fundamental interactions.
Construction of a Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory is vital
to U.S. leadership in core aspects of this initiative.
Recommendation IV
• The experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider have discovered a new
state of matter at extreme temperature and density—a quark-gluon plasma that
exhibits unexpected, almost perfect liquid dynamical behavior. We recommend
implementation of the RHIC II luminosity upgrade, together with detector
improvements, to determine the properties of this new state of matter.
Recommendations for the further future
Initiatives
NSAC Subcommittee
Robert Tribble (Chair)
Adam Burrows
George Crabtree
Joseph Carlson
Brad Filippone
Stuart Freedman
Haiyan Gao
Donald Geesaman
Barbara Jacek
Peter Jacobs
David Kaplan
Kirby Kemper
Krishna Kumar
Naomi Makins
Curtis Meyer
James Nagle
Witold Nazarewicz
Krishna Rajagopol
Michael Ramsey-Musolf
Lee Sobotka
Michael Wiescher
John Wilkerson
Texas A&M
Princeton
ANL
LANL
Caltech
UC-Berkeley
Duke
ANL
Stony Brook
LBNL
Washington
Florida State
Massachusetts
Illinois – UC
Carnegie-Mellon
Colorado
Tennessee/ORNL
M.I.T.
Wisconsin
Washington U. St. Louis
Notre Dame
North Carolina State
Plans for the Subcommittee
Discussion prior to charge at April APS meeting
May15: Organizational meeting in Washington Area
Sept 7-9: Meeting to gather input. Presentations summarizing major areas of
science and plans for major facilities. Detailed budget scenarios from the
agencies.
November: Resolution Meeting
January 7: Report due to NSAC
Late January: NSAC meeting to consider report.
Community input: Asked for input through DNP mailing. Most facilities are
working through their users groups. Some may self organize town meetings
Web Site:
http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsac-subcommittee-2012/
What do we need from the community
• Willingness to contribute, possibly on a very rapid time scale, to providing
input to NSAC and the subcommittee
• Support for the process and, when complete, the recommendations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Considerations
It is absolutely essential that the process is viewed as fair and deliberate
The recommendations must be based on the science opportunities and
the future of the field, not institutional concerns.
We must carry out a process that the entire field will embrace and speak
with one voice.
Circling the wagons and shooting inward is destructive.
Making arguments about the relative value of other Office of Science or
NSF programs is destructive
We cannot make decisions based on possible or perceived external
political factors
Summary
• If we do this well, we can communicate the value of our science and the
wisdom in our planning decisions.
• NSAC is widely viewed as being able to respond coherently to the issues
at hand and that thus the agencies pay very close attention to our
recommendations.
• We must respond to the charge.
• There is currently an element of uncertainty in the future U.S. program
which has international ramifications for NuPECC. However, the U.S. will
continue to invest heavily in nuclear physics research. There may be new
opportunities for collaborations and joint ventures.
• NP2010, the National Research Council Decadal Report on Nuclear
Physics, should be released next week.