Report from NSAC

Donald Geesaman

IUPAP WG-9 Meeting

17 August 2012

8/17/2012 1

2012 NSAC Committee

Robert Atcher Peter Jacobs Jamie NagleLANL LBNL Colorado

Jeffrey Binder David Kaplan Kenneth Nash (ACS)ORNL Washington Washington State

Jeffery Blackmon Joshua Klein Allena OpperLouisiana State Pennsylvania George Washington

Gail Dodge Karlheinz Langanke Jorge PiekarewiczOld Dominion GSI Florida State

Alexandra Gade Zheng-tian Lu Julia VelkovskaMichigan State ANL Vanderbilt

Susan Gardner Robert McKeown Rajagopal VenugopalinKentucky Jefferson Lab BNL

Donald Geesaman (Chair) Curtis MeyerANL Carnegie Mellon8/17/2012 2

US Outlook Raises the Spector of Considerable Possible Changes

• 2007 Long Range Plan– Expectation of doubling of science budgets– Construction of JLab 12 GeV Upgrade– Facility for Rare Isotope Beams– Deep Underground Science Laboratory– RHIC Luminosity Upgrade– Future thinking of an electron-ion collider

• 2009 Influx of one time funding from recovery act (ARRA)• 2009 FRIB “Other Project Costs” funding starts• 2011 FRIB TEC Project Funding starts• FY2012 President’s request contains 15.9% increase

– HRIBF closed– Enacted budget had a 3.7% increase

• FY13 request at FY11 level – possibility of flat budgetsfor some time to come.8/17/2012 3

2012 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 4th year. Ready for CD-2• Majorana demonstrator in progress and neutron

EDM R&D continuing. CUORE equipment funding complete in 2012.

8/17/2012 4

The 2013 President’s Budget Request brings challenges

8/17/2012 5

FY12 NP down 3.5% from FY11 and NSCL held flatFY13 expect about flat

8/17/2012 6

From Dr. Brinkman’s and Dr. Hallman’s slides

8/17/2012 7

2012 Congressional 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 it is not clear what happens. “Agreement” on a CR til March.

• 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

8/17/2012 8

8/17/2012 9

8/17/2012 10

8/17/2012 11

8/17/2012 12

Underground Lab – now in the hands of HEP at DOE

8/17/2012 13

Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment reconfiguration working group recently favored the option to build a new beamline to Homestake with an initial 10 kton LAr-TPC detector on the surface.

8/17/2012 14

8/17/2012 15

8/17/2012 16

Observationsprojecting 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). 8/17/2012 17

NSAC SubcommitteeRobert Tribble (Chair) Texas A&MAdam Burrows PrincetonGeorge Crabtree ANLJoseph Carlson LANLBrad Filippone CaltechStuart Freedman UC-BerkeleyHaiyan Gao DukeDonald Geesaman ANLBarbara Jacek Stony BrookPeter Jacobs LBNLDavid Kaplan WashingtonKirby Kemper Florida StateKrishna Kumar MassachusettsNaomi Makins Illinois – UCCurtis Meyer Carnegie-MellonJames Nagle ColoradoWitold Nazarewicz Tennessee/ORNLKrishna Rajagopol M.I.T.Michael Ramsey-Musolf WisconsinLee Sobotka Washington U. St. LouisMichael Wiescher Notre DameJohn Wilkerson North Carolina State8/17/2012 18

Plans for the SubcommitteeDiscussion prior to charge at April APS meeting

May15: Organizational meeting in Washington Area

Sept 6-9: 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/

8/17/2012 19

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 . 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 has been released. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13438

Also two videos http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_0695898/17/2012 20

National Research Council Decadal Survey of Nuclear Physics NP2010

• Chair: Stuart Freedman, Vice Chair: Ani Aprahamian• Pre-Publication version released June 2012http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13438

Recommendations on the next four slides.

8/17/2012 21

Finding: By capitalizing on strategic investments, including the ongoing upgrade of the continuous electron beam accelerator facility (CEBAF) at the Thomas Jefferson Accelerator Facility and the recently completed upgrade of the relativistic heavy ion collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory (RHIC), as well as other upgrades to the research infrastructure, nuclear physicists will confront new opportunities to make fundamental discoveries and lay the16 groundwork for new applications.

Conclusion: Exploiting strategic investments should be an essential component of the U.S. nuclear science program in the coming decade.

After years of development and hard work involving a large segment of the U.S. nuclear physics community and the Department of Energy, a major, world leading new accelerator is being constructed in the United States.

Finding: The Facility for Rare Isotope Beams is a major new strategic investment in nuclear science. It will have unique capabilities and offers opportunities to answer fundamental questions about the inner workings of the atomic nucleus, the formation of the elements in our universe, and the evolution of the cosmos.

Recommendation: The DOE’s Office of Science in conjunction with the State of Michigan and Michigan State University, should work toward the timelycompletion of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and the initiation of its physics program.8/17/2012 22

Recommendation: The Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation,and, where appropriate, other funding agencies should develop and implement atargeted program of underground science, including important experiments onwhether neutrinos differ from antineutrinos, on the nature of dark matter, and onnuclear reactions of astrophysical importance. Such a program would besubstantially enabled by the realization of a deep underground laboratory in theUnited States.

Finding: The dual role of universities—education and research—is important inall aspects of nuclear physics, including the operation of small, medium, and large facilities, as well as the design and execution of large experiments at thenational research laboratories. The vitality and sustainability of the U.S. nuclearphysics program depend in an essential way on the intellectual environment andthe workforce provided symbiotically by universities and the national laboratories. The fraction of the nuclear science budget reserved for facilities operations cannot continue to grow at the expense of the resources available to support research without serious damage to the overall nuclear science program.

Conclusion: In order to ensure the long-term health of the field, it is critical toestablish and maintain a balance between funding of operations at major facilitiesand the needs of university-based programs.8/17/2012 23

Recommendation: The Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation should create and fund two national competitions: one a fellowshipprogram for graduate students that will help recruit the best among the nextgeneration into nuclear science and the other a fellowship program forpostdoctoral researchers to provide the best young nuclear scientists withsupport, independence, and visibility.

Recommendation: A plan should be developed within the theoreticalcommunity and enabled by the appropriate sponsors that permits forefrontcomputing resources to be deployed by nuclear science researchers andestablishes the infrastructure and collaborations needed to take advantage ofexascale capabilities as they become available.

Finding: The range of projects in nuclear physics is broad, and sophisticated newtools and protocols have been developed for successful management of thelargest of them. At the smaller end of the scale, nimbleness is essential if theUnited States is to remain competitive and innovative in a rapidly expandinginternational nuclear physics area.

Recommendation: The sponsoring agencies should develop streamlined andflexible procedures that are tailored for initiating and managing smaller-scalenuclear science projects.

8/17/2012 24

Finding: An upgrade to an existing accelerator facility that enables the collidingof nuclei and electrons at forefront energies would be unique for studying newaspects of quantum chromodynamics. In particular, such an upgrade would yieldnew information on the role of gluons in protons and nuclei. An electron-ioncollider is currently under scrutiny as a possible future facility.

Recommendation: Investment in accelerator and detector research anddevelopment for an electron-ion collider should continue. The scienceopportunities and the requirements for such a facility should be carefullyevaluated in the next Nuclear Science Long-Range Plan.

8/17/2012 25

The 2007 Long Range Plan

8/17/2012 26

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.

Recommendations of the 2007 NSAC Long Range Plan

8/17/2012 27

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

8/17/2012 28