1 / 11

Blacksburg Workshop

Bernard Sadoulet Dept. of Physics /LBNL UC Berkeley UC Institute for Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (INPAC). Blacksburg Workshop. DUSEL process Solicitation 1 Workshops: Berkeley, Blacksburg , Boulder, Maryland(?) Goals Style. DUSEL Process.

malise
Download Presentation

Blacksburg Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bernard Sadoulet Dept. of Physics /LBNL UC Berkeley UC Institute for Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (INPAC) Blacksburg Workshop DUSEL process Solicitation 1 Workshops: Berkeley, Blacksburg, Boulder, Maryland(?) Goals Style

  2. DUSEL Process • Solicitation 1: Community wide study of • • Scientific roadmap: from Nuclear/Particle/Astro Physics to Geo Physics/Chemistry/Microbiology/Engineering • • Generic infrastructure requirements • • Proposal supported by all 8 known sites submitted on Sept 15,2004 (www.dusel.org) • Under review by NSF • Solicitation 2 : Preselection of 3-5 sites • • Proposals due January 10. • Solicitation 3 • Selection of initial site(s) • MRE and Presidential Budget (hope 08 start)

  3. Solicitation 1 Organization • 6 PI’s responsible for the study • in particular scientific quality/ objectivity • 14 working groups + Workshops • Infrastructure requirements/management • Education and outreach • 2 consultation groups • • The site consultation group (Solicitation 2 sites) • Endorsement of the PI’s and general approach • Input on scientific/technical questions important to the sites • Competition between sites • • The initiative coordination group: major stakeholders (e.g. National Labs) • Coordination with other major initiatives • Competition between these initiatives • Report directed at OMB/OSTP/Congress cf. Quantum Universe +Web based reports with technical facts External review à la NRC

  4. Workshops • Berkeley Aug 4-7 • Agree about methodology and finalize Solicitation 1 proposal • First exploration of scientific themes • Start of work on infrastructure requirements • Common language for solicitation 2 • Blacksburg Nov 12-13 • Focus on Earth Sciences (including Geo-microbiology) and Applications • More precise definition of scientific roadmaps and generic experiments • Generic infrastructure requirements: Adaptation of methodology • Help in integration into solicitation 2 proposals • Boulder Jan 5-7 • Bring in “mainstream” biologists (e.g. evolutionary molecular and microbe) • Synergies between fields • Focus on infrastructure requirements <= results of working groups Modules • Sketch of report: major themes • Last opportunity to adjust our common language before Solicitation 2 • Washington Area: March or April • Conclusions • First draft of report

  5. Berkeley Workshop: Physics/Earth Science • Clearly something is happening • Partnership • Not only to boost political case • Money saving/new opportunities from co-location • e.g. Deep module as platform • Instrumentation of the site before construction and monitoring after • biological precautions • Synergies • Technology MEMS, Data acquisition • Large caverns • Novel scientific methods • use of particle methods for earth exploration (neutrinos, low radioactivity counting) • use of geophysics methods for particle detection? • Different styles • novel approaches • more effective argumentation with agencies • Intellectual climate at site(s) • Multidisciplinary=> intellectual creativity • education of our students • education and outreach

  6. Berkeley Workshop:The Big Scientific Question • Illuminating the dark side of the earth and the cosmos • Nature of dark matter and dark energy • The neutrino properties • Matter/antimatter asymmetry and stability of matter • Ancient life/evolution/adaptation • Understanding the earth and its evolution /rock deformation/ earthquakes • Imaging the underground world => mastery of the rock

  7. Berkeley Workshop:A Powerful Case for DUSEL • Unique aspects • Earth Science: Deep, long term is unique • Physics: Depth ? • Long base line + accelerators • Likely demand and evolution of science • We have to build the case • Road maps + Infrastructure requirements • Strategic importance • as large scale experiments become international , important to have US site to have US teams leading the projects • We want the U.S. to be a leader in geoscience techniques • Energy sciences (finding oil deposit, etc.) • Underground construction • Education of our scientists and engineers • Homeland security • International context and partnerships • SNO • Japan/Europe

  8. Blacksburg:Scientific Roadmapsfor Deep Underground Earth Science • Starting from previous studies (in particular Ness2002,Earth Lab report, Berkeley workshop) go further • Identification of major themes • With syntheses which make sense for the specialists, resonate with other scientists and fascinates the non scientists • Relatively few working groups: Coupled processes, rock mechanics and tectonics, geo-microbiology and applications • Prioritization • What are the most pressing questions to answer deep underground? • Can we identify major types of experiments or facilities • Not necessarily same approach as physicists • But go further than the “1km3 sand box” where we want to play for at least 10 years • e.g. Earth Lab • Ultradeep Life and Biogeochemistry Observatory • Deep Flow and Paleoclimate Laboratory and Observatory • Induced Fracture and Deformation Processes Laboratory Deep Coupled Processes Laboratory

  9. Blacksburg: Infrastructure Requirements • Earth science is not geology independent • Not everything can be done at every site • What are the generic site characteristics which are necessary to at least start to tackle the most important questions • cf Depth as a major characteristic for physicists (but not needed for all) • Do we have enough of a scientific case for recommending eventually a combination of sites? • Adapt infrastructure requirement matrix to Deep Earth Science (Lee Petersen, Derek Ellsworth) • At minimum, additional columns indicating rock type, fracture characteristics etc. • Define also needed characterization / monitoring of the site + precautions for biological studies • Estimate of the demand in an international context

  10. Berkeley Workshop: Physics/Earth Science • Clarity about differences • Earth scientists: heterogeneous fragmented • Physicists: homogeneous => large cavities • Earth scientists: more sites • Physicists: single organization • Earth scientists: virgin territory • Some physicists: use of existing sites • to reduce costs

  11. Style • Solicitation 1 process • Study cutting across sites: “ Site independent” (obviously not geology independent) • Program under PI’s responsibility • Visit of Kimballton is not an official part of the workshop • Stress our unity • A big success at Berkeley • In spite of the competition between sites (and natural tendency to push competitive advantage of our favorite site) • No product placement, propaganda • No bias of the scientific arguments for political purpose • Education and outreach should never be very far in the background

More Related