Long Range Planning

1. Long Range Planning Pier Oddone September 24, 2007

2. If you were Office of Science… • If you were Office of Science making a ten year plan…… What would you have received as the “ships of the line” for HEP from the community? • LHC Upgrades: uncertain in time scale or scope. Detectors? Accelerators? • JDEM/SNAP: $400M assumed by BEPAC • ILC: time scale undetermined; is 0.5 TeV enough? Size requires Presidential initiative outside of HEP

3. If you were Office of Science… • What would you place in the plan? • Clearly an allowance for LHC upgrades. $500M? – but lack of concrete plans and knowledge of what is needed might limit how much and when • Clearly $400M for JDEM/SNAP. If selection other than SNAP, we might acquire more astronomers? • Not construction $$ for ILC: if it does not happen, clearly Office of Science would not need the $$

4. If you were Office of Science… • How much $$ would you put in the plan? • HEP will spend >$8B in the next ten years at the present level • More than enough for the program proposed -excluding the ILC • Way too little for an ILC; need of a separate stream

5. Problems for P5 to solve • Problems that arise from the “rules of the road” • Problems that arise from competitive facilities in other regions • Problems that arise from “selection” of projects as opposed to “roadmap”

6. Rules of the road • Operating facilities with essential programs get top priority. Example: Tevatron running • Next priority is construction projects with a budget and a schedule • R&D programs are squeezable when confronted with the top priorities

7. Problem from the rules of the road • We are shutting our major facilities (program done): Tevatron, B-factory, CESR • We are not building any large projects. NOvA is the exception and it is modest ($260M for detector and accelerator) • Problem: no driver to maintain/increase the resources for the field

8. Competitive situation • Energy Frontier: Europe unique for the next one to two decades; ILC is our first priority in the US • Intensity frontier: if we do nothing we will lose the lead in proton intensity to JPARC (Japan) and the SPL (Europe) and quark flavor physics to SuperB in Japan or Italy • Particle Astrophysics: US has had a leading role and should maintain it with JDEM, LSST

9. Problems with competitive situation • In a world with a delayed ILC or no ILC – grave risk that we are left ONLY with accelerator R&D without world leading facilities either at the energy frontier or the intensity frontier • Once we are in that bucket: much harder to get out to a position to build the next global facility: the accelerator based program will be smaller

10. Problem: selection vs. roadmap • We have selected the projects to start: DES, NOvA, Daya Bay – only NOvA is a “large project”. First step of a roadmap • Problem: “…I want a dialog with the HEP community…” leads to “we’ll talk to you in three years when we know more….” • Example: can say “wait until we know sin2q13” or build a roadmap that depends on that number

11. Fermilab Steering Group • Steering Group NOT to provide a plan A vs. plan B, rather an integrated roadmap with discovery opportunities in the next two decades that: • supports the international R&D and engineering design for as early a start of the ILC as possible and supports the development of Fermilab as a potential host site for the ILC; • develops options for an accelerator-based high energy physics program in the event the start of the ILC construction is slower than the technically-limited schedule; and

12. Fermilab Steering Group • includes the steps necessary to explore higher energy colliders that might follow the ILC or be needed should the results from LHC point toward a higher energy than that planned for the ILC • Broad community engagement under the leadership of deputy director Young Kee Kim

13. What we are asking P5 • Take into consideration it takes a minimum of four years to break ground on any new project • Need recommendations on the roadmap that take account of the full complexity of the world in which we live • If the roadmap we propose is to be effective, it needs R&D support for project preparation