Strategy for Moving Forward in PPA

1
Strategy for Moving Forward in Particle Physics
and Astrophysics at SLAC

• Steven M. Kahn
• Associate Laboratory Director,
• Particle Physics and Astrophysics

2
Challenges to the PPA Program

• 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 turn-on of the Large
  Hadron Collider.
• The ILC, planned to be the next big facility for
  this field, and the previous focus of SLACs
  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.

3
Outline

• 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 SLACs
  HEP program?
• Concluding remarks.

4
Recent Developments for Major Programs
PEP-II/BaBar

• 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 DD has begun in earnest and will become a
  significant activity in FY09.

5
Discovery of the ?B
6

PEP-II Performance
7
Recent Developments for Major Programs Fermi GST

• 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.

8
Launch!
9
First Light Images from FGST
10
Recent Developments for Major Programs ILC

• The ILC program was sharply reduced partway
  through FY08. We had to curtail some
  ILC-specific activities, and transfer personnel
  into more generic accelerator RD.
• The program has been reinstated at about 35M in
  FY09, with roughly 10M slated for SLAC.
• SLAC leads the RD 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 RD effort for the SiD concept, supporting
  both simulation and design activities, as well as
  technology development.

11
Recent Developments in Major Programs ATLAS

• 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.

12
Recent Developments in Major Programs SuperB

• 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.

13
Recent Developments for Major Programs LSST

• LSST is still in an RD 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
  RD, 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).

14
The LSST Primary/Tertiary Mirror
15
Recent Developments in Major Programs EXO

• 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 RD on DUSEL experiments
  is currently in progress.

16
EXO Commissioning and Move to WIPP
17
Recent Developments for Major Programs JDEM

• 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.

18
Recent Developments for Major Programs FACET

• 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
  ee- 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.

19
FACET Layout
FACET consists of Accelerator Science Facility
(ASF) (Sector 20) e bunch compressor (Sector
10) Future ESA test beams Spent beam from
LCLS-undulator 2
20
The P5 Report
21
Charge to the Panel

• 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.

22
The Three Frontiers of Particle Physics

• 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.

23
Scenario B Roadmap
24
SLAC Alignment to P5 Priorities

• 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 RD, including ILC,
  High Gradient (X-band), and advanced accelerator
  concepts (e.g. plasma wakefield).

25
P5 Report Mapping to SLAC
ATLAS
TeV ee- Colllider RD
SuperB
LSST JDEM Particle Astro
EXO
Project X
26
The SLAC Program Review

• 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 labs physical size and personnel
  constraints.
• Furthermore, the lower than expected funding for
  the OHEP has caused unexpected contractions of
  the labs HEP scope and personnel, and these
  cutbacks may adversely affect the labs
  performance in the future.

27
The SLAC Program Review - Summary Actions
28
The SLAC Theory Review

• In the new system, the lab-wide program reviews
  are supplemented by reviews of specific research
  efforts (BR 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 RD (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.

29
The SLAC Theory Review - Findings

• 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.

30
Overview of Financial Data 2007-2010
31
Near-Term Funding Priorities

• Despite our desire to get some new programs
  going, our priorities will have to remain similar
  to what they were last year - operations,
  projects, RD
• BaBar Intense Analysis and BaBar DD.
• 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 RD. This will become better defined
  in the coming year, but electron accelerator rd
  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.

32
What is the Right Asymptotic Size for SLACs HEP
Program?

• 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 RD 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.

33
SLAC as a Continuing User Laboratory

• 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, NASAs
  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.

34
Building the Budget from the Ground Up?

• 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 RD, 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 RD 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 RD. But the
  ultimate decisions will depend on the national
  prioritization process.

35
Concluding Remarks

• 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.