DOE Office of High Energy Physics Report to the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee
-
Upload
aubrey-durham -
Category
Documents
-
view
24 -
download
0
description
Transcript of DOE Office of High Energy Physics Report to the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee
1
Department of Energy
Office of Science
DOE Office of High Energy Physics
Report to theAstronomy and Astrophysics Advisory
Committee
Dennis KovarActing Associate Director for the
Office of High Energy Physics,Office of Science, DOE
February 11, 2008
2
Department of Energy
Office of Science
DOE Office of High Energy Physics (HEP)
The mission of the High Energy Physics (HEP) program is to understand how our universe works at its most fundamental level.
• We do this by discovering the most elementary constituents of matter and energy, probing the interactions between them, and exploring the basic nature of space and time itself.
• To enable these discoveries, HEP supports theoretical and experimental research in both elementary particle physics and fundamental accelerator science and other supporting technology.
Includes the understanding of the connections between the physics of elementary particles and the physics that determines the structure of the universe, leading to the investigation of very high energy cosmic acceleration mechanisms
DOE HEP Office provides 90% of the federal support for High Energy Physics research and coordinates with NSF, NASA and international efforts
3
Department of Energy
Office of Science
The Scientific Opportunities of HEPThe Scientific Opportunities of HEP
The [National Academy EPP 2010] committee arrived at three strong conclusions regardingBoth particle physics and the U.S. role in this global scientific and technological enterprise:
“Particle physics plays an essential role in the broader enterprise of the physical sciences. It inspires U.S. students, attracts talent from around the world, and drives critical intellectual
and technological advances in other fields.”
“Although setting priorities is essential, it also is critical to maintain a diverse portfolio of activities in particle physics, from theory to accelerator R&D to the construction and support of new experimental facilities. The committee believes that accelerators will remain an essential component of the program,
since some critical scientific questions cannot be explored in any other manner.”
“The field of elementary particle physics is entering an era of unprecedented potential. New experimental facilities, including accelerators, space-based experiments, underground laboratories, and critical precision measurements of various kinds, offer a variety of ways to explore the hidden nature of matter, energy, space, and time. The availability of technologies that can explore directly an energy regime known as the
Terascale is especially exciting.” ……
The results of the committee’s analysis have led to its chief recommendation:
“The United States should remain globally competitive in elementary particle physics by playing a leading role in the worldwide effort to aggressively study Terascale physics.”
4
Department of Energy
Office of Science
The Status of HEPThe Status of HEP
HEP is at an extraordinary productive and exciting period with significant discoveries anticipated at the energy frontier and in particle
astrophysics and neutrino science.
The FY 2008 Omnibus Bill funding has resulted in significant loss of HEP scientific productivity and workforce, and; U.S. credibility as an interagency/international partner
Planning is addressing the EPP 2010 priorities: exploration of the Terascale at the LHC; investment in R&D for an international linear collider, and; expansion of the program in astrophysics and internationalization of a staged
program in neutrino physics.
Current circumstances are challenging for the U.S. program: the imminent closing of U.S. HEP facilities; the recognition that the earliest possible start for the ILC will be in the middle of the
next decade, and; the budget uncertainties for HEP (all of Science).
5
Department of Energy
Office of Science
DOE Office of High Energy Physics (HEP)
DOE HEP supports: Operations of User Facilities (Tevatron, NuMi, B-Factory) Fabrication and operations of experiments Researchers and students (6 National Laboratories and >100 universities) R&D for next generation accelerators and instrumentation
DOE HEP ProgramAccelerator-based physics • Proton based: Fermilab Tevatron (energy frontier) – planned to end operations in FY 2009
-- Currently reviewing possibility of running in FY 2010 Future: CERN LHC (energy frontier) – to start in FY 2009 Fermilab NuMi (neutrino studies)
Electron based: SLAC B-Factory (test of standard model) – terminates in FY 2008
Non-accelerator physics Atmospheric, solar, reactor neutrinos (SuperK, KamLAND, SNO, Daya Bay, etc.) Particle Astrophysics/Cosmology (GLAST, Auger, VERITAS, SDSS, CDMS-II, AMS, etc.)
Theory Elementary Particle Theory Major Computing efforts: (simulations, data management, etc.)
Technology R&D R&D for accelerator & detector technologies R&D for International Linear Collider (ILC)
6
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Today’s Major Tools:U.S. HEP Accelerator Experiments
B-factory at SLACB-factory at SLACNeutrinos @ MINOSNeutrinos @ MINOSTevatron at FermilabTevatron at Fermilab
7
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Tomorrow’s Major Toolsat the Energy Frontier
ATLAS@CERNATLAS@CERN
CMS@CERNCMS@CERN
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)@CERNLarge Hadron Collider (LHC)@CERN
8
Department of Energy
Office of Science
• Funding for DOE Office Science (SC) increased by 4.6% compared to FY 2007• This included “earmarks” so funding going to peer-review SC program +2.5%• There were winners and losers
• Computing/biological/environmental – increased from request• High energy/nuclear physics/basic energy science – decreased from request• Funding was reduced for the ITER project (fusion energy sciences (FES))• High Energy was only one (except for FES/ITER) that decreased from FY 2007
• Overall DOE SC funding was reduced by $503M (-11%) from FY 2008 President’s Request• Does not support President’s American Competitive Initiative (ACI) - amount• Is at great variance with President’s FY 2009 Request that support ACI - priorities
• DOE SC HEP funding is last few years has fluctuated• FY 2008 funding is a -8.4% (-$63M) reduction from FY 2007• FY 2008 funding is a 12.5% (-93M) reduction from FY 2008 Request• Looking back to FY 2005 – HEP program has lost the operating funds of the B-Factory
• Funding for DOE Office Science (SC) increased by 4.6% compared to FY 2007• This included “earmarks” so funding going to peer-review SC program +2.5%• There were winners and losers
• Computing/biological/environmental – increased from request• High energy/nuclear physics/basic energy science – decreased from request• Funding was reduced for the ITER project (fusion energy sciences (FES))• High Energy was only one (except for FES/ITER) that decreased from FY 2007
• Overall DOE SC funding was reduced by $503M (-11%) from FY 2008 President’s Request• Does not support President’s American Competitive Initiative (ACI) - amount• Is at great variance with President’s FY 2009 Request that support ACI - priorities
• DOE SC HEP funding is last few years has fluctuated• FY 2008 funding is a -8.4% (-$63M) reduction from FY 2007• FY 2008 funding is a 12.5% (-93M) reduction from FY 2008 Request• Looking back to FY 2005 – HEP program has lost the operating funds of the B-Factory
FY 2008 AppropriationsFY 2008 Appropriations
9
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Office of ScienceOffice of Science
FY 2008 Appropriation(dollars in thousands)
FY 2008 Enacted Approp. vs.FY 2007 Enacted
Approp.FY 2008 Request
Basic Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1100805 1134557 1250250 1498497 1269902 +19,652 +1.6% -228,595 -15.3%Advanced Scientific Computing Res.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………231649 234684 283415 340198 351173 +67,758 +23.9% +10,975 +3.2%Biological & Environmental Research………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………500503 451131 483495 531897 544397 +60,902 +12.6% +12,500 +2.4%High Energy Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………733622 716694 751786 782238 688317 -63,469 -8.4% -93,921 -12.0%Nuclear Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………403320 367034 422766 471319 432726 +9,960 +2.4% -38,593 -8.2%Fusion Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………272754 287644 318950 427850 286548 -32,402 -10.2% -141,302 -33.0%Science Laboratory Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41902 41684 41986 78956 64861 +22,875 +54.5% -14,095 -17.9%SC Program Direction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………154031 159118 166469 184934 177779 +11,310 +6.8% -7,155 -3.9%Workforce Development………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7571 7120 7952 11000 8044 +92 +1.2% -2,956 -26.9%Safeguards & Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………72773 73630 75830 76592 75946 +116 +0.2% -646 -0.8%SBIR/STTR (SC)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 0 0 0 0 —— —— —— ——
Subtotal, SC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3518930 3473296 3802899 4403481 3899693 +96,794 +2.5% -503,788 -11.4%Approp. versus FY 2006 9.5% 12.3%Request versus FY 2006 26.8%
Congressional Directed Projects**………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………91608 128700 0 0 123623 +123,623 —— +123,623 ——Subtotal, SC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3610538 3601996 3802899 4403481 4023316 +220,417 +5.8% -380,165 -8.6%
Coralville, IA project rescission………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 0 0 0 -44569 -44,569 —— -44,569 ——Security charge to reimbursable cust.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………-5605 -5605 -5605 -5605 -5605 —— —— —— ——General reduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 0 0 0 0 —— —— —— ——Use of prior year balances………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………-5062 0 0 0 0 —— —— —— ——
Total, SC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3599871 3596391 3797294 4397876 3973142 +175,848 +4.6% -424,734 -9.7%
* The enacted appropriation column reflects the original appropriation amount before the SBIR/STTR reprogramming and appropriation transfer and
other approved reprogrammings. It includes enacted rescissions, whether the rescission was part of the original appropriations bill or enacted subsequently
FY 2008 Enacted Approp.*
FY 2007 Enacted Approp.*
FY 2008 Request
FY 2005 Enacted Approp.*
FY 2006 Enacted Approp.*
10
Department of Energy
Office of Science
• FY 2008 Omnibus Bill provides $63M less than FY 2007 (-8.5%)• Language specifies:
• no funding for NOvA• ILC R&D and SRF infrastructure funding capped at ~1/4 requested
• Large fraction of this reduction supported people• Fermilab and SLAC (because of ILC/SRF funding) impacted most severely
• Magnitude of reduction and occurring ¼ through the Fiscal Year limited options• One cannot layoff people immediately (takes time and there are severance costs)• Layoffs alone could not meet the bottomline (nor does it make sense)• Needed to look at large non-salary costs (i.e.; facility operations)• But even with significant layoffs – each facilities could run<1/2 planned weeks
• Decision had to be made quickly – delay in layoffs – decreases running weeks
• Came to choice of running the Fermilab or B-Factory
• Operation of the Tevatron in FY 2008 was judged more important• Scientific priority• Preserves options for the future U.S. program
• FY 2008 Omnibus Bill provides $63M less than FY 2007 (-8.5%)• Language specifies:
• no funding for NOvA• ILC R&D and SRF infrastructure funding capped at ~1/4 requested
• Large fraction of this reduction supported people• Fermilab and SLAC (because of ILC/SRF funding) impacted most severely
• Magnitude of reduction and occurring ¼ through the Fiscal Year limited options• One cannot layoff people immediately (takes time and there are severance costs)• Layoffs alone could not meet the bottomline (nor does it make sense)• Needed to look at large non-salary costs (i.e.; facility operations)• But even with significant layoffs – each facilities could run<1/2 planned weeks
• Decision had to be made quickly – delay in layoffs – decreases running weeks
• Came to choice of running the Fermilab or B-Factory
• Operation of the Tevatron in FY 2008 was judged more important• Scientific priority• Preserves options for the future U.S. program
The DOE HEP Budget in FY 2008The DOE HEP Budget in FY 2008
11
Department of Energy
Office of Science
The DOE HEP Program in FY 2008
HEP Plan for FY 2008:
• Core Research at approximately FY2007 level of effort
• Tevatron and LHC programs supported
• Projects (except NOvA) go forward on planned profiles
• Other (non-ILC and SRF) technology R&D continues as planned
12
Department of Energy
Office of Science
FY 2009 Budget Request
Office of ScienceFY 2009 Budget Request to Congress
(dollars in thousands)
Basic Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,221,380 1,269,902 1,568,160 +298,258 +23.5%Advanced Scientific Computing Research………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………275,734 351,173 368,820 +17,647 +5.0%Biological and Environmental Research………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………480,104 544,397 568,540 +24,143 +4.4%High Energy Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………732,434 689,331 804,960 +115,629 +16.8%Nuclear Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………412,330 432,726 510,080 +77,354 +17.9%Fusion Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………311,664 286,548 493,050 +206,502 +72.1%Science Laboratories Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41,986 66,861 110,260 +43,399 +64.9%Science Program Direction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………166,469 177,779 203,913 +26,134 +14.7%Workforce Dev. for Teachers & Scientists………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7,952 8,044 13,583 +5,539 +68.9%Safeguards and Security (gross)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………75,830 75,946 80,603 +4,657 +6.1%SBIR/STTR (SC funding)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………86,936 —— —— —— ——
Subtotal, Office of Science………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,812,819 3,902,707 4,721,969 +819,262 +21.0%Adjustments*………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23,794 70,435 —— -70,435 ——
Total, Office of Science………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,836,613 3,973,142 4,721,969 +748,827 +18.8%
* Adjustments include SBIR/STTR funding transferred from other DOE offices (FY 2007 only), a charge to reimbursable customers for their share of safeguards and security costs (FY 2007 and FY 2008), Congressionally-directed projects and a rescission of a prior year Congressionally-directed project (FY 2008 only), and offsets for the use of prior year balances to fund current year activities (FY 2007 and FY 2008).
FY 2009 Request to Congress
FY 2009 Request to Congress vs. FY 2008
Approp.
FY 2008 Approp.
FY 2007 Approp.
13
Department of Energy
Office of Science
DOE HEP Request for FY 2009
President’s Request for FY2009:– HEP Budget is $805.0M– This is an +17% increase from FY2008 appropriation– Puts HEP program back on track of American Competitiveness Initiative that
doubles physical sciences funding over 10 years
There are a number of significant program shifts:– Some are driven by FY2008 reductions
• Reduced and re-focused ILC R&D program• NOvA profile delayed one year
– Others reflect the evolution of HEP strategic plan in the LHC era• B-Factory run completed
– begin ramp-down and D&D. Data analysis will continue for a few years• Tevatron running full-out
– either discovery or significant limits on New Physics in advance of LHC• U.S. researchers in leading roles at LHC• Joint Dark Energy Mission R&D ramping up
– to complete conceptual design and select a mission concept
14
Department of Energy
Office of Science
DOE HEP Strategic Plan
A central challenge for the U.S. and international HEP community is defining and executing a robust and balanced scientific program that includes a collider at the energy frontier.
The ILC is widely viewed as that collider, but:
– It is a complex, challenging, multi-billion $ investment
– It requires international commitments
– The ILC physics case and some design parameters will depend on results from the LHC that will probably not be available for at least a few years
Therefore in FY 2009, we propose to:
– Continue support for a U.S. role in the global ILC R&D effort, but focused on areas where the U.S. is the acknowledged leader
– Maintain a balanced scientific program that will preserve options for U.S. leadership in targeted areas, both in the LHC era and whatever comes next
15
Department of Energy
Office of Science
DOE HEP Technology R&D Plan
The overall strategy for accelerator technology R&D has both near- and long-term components to provide options for the U.S. program over the next decade:
– Short-term R&D focused on development of a high intensity proton source for an enhanced scientific program in neutrinos and rare decays at Fermilab
– Mid-term R&D directed at developing superconducting RF (SRF) technology and infrastructure, for both the HEP program and wider scientific applications of SRF accelerators
– The focused ILC R&D program (as discussed above)
– Long-term R&D directed at advanced accelerator technologies that hold the promise of transformational change. A new test facility for Advanced Accelerator R&D concepts is included in the FY2009 President’s Request.
16
Department of Energy
Office of Science
We are at a pivot point, I believe, in the U.S. not only for HEP, but for DOE SC programs and the physical sciences
• There is support for research and development – but there is a debate about how much should go for short-term, mid-term and long-term (basic) research
• The Administration is strongly supporting long-term basic research• The FY 2009 Budget Request provides funding for doubling funding for physical sciences• SC Budget increases by +21 % (HEP increases by +16.8%)
• There is the expectation that Congress will not pass a funding bill until President leaves• So expectation of a Continuing Resolution (funding at previous year level) for 6 months
• For HEP in the U.S. - it can go in a couple of directions• The US community has to develop a compelling realistic vision for the a U.S. program - then
they need to support it• I believe that this is essential if we are to change the direction of the U.S. program that was
implied in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill.• This will not be possible unless it is part of a coordinated international plan
We are at a pivot point, I believe, in the U.S. not only for HEP, but for DOE SC programs and the physical sciences
• There is support for research and development – but there is a debate about how much should go for short-term, mid-term and long-term (basic) research
• The Administration is strongly supporting long-term basic research• The FY 2009 Budget Request provides funding for doubling funding for physical sciences• SC Budget increases by +21 % (HEP increases by +16.8%)
• There is the expectation that Congress will not pass a funding bill until President leaves• So expectation of a Continuing Resolution (funding at previous year level) for 6 months
• For HEP in the U.S. - it can go in a couple of directions• The US community has to develop a compelling realistic vision for the a U.S. program - then
they need to support it• I believe that this is essential if we are to change the direction of the U.S. program that was
implied in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill.• This will not be possible unless it is part of a coordinated international plan
FY 2009FY 2009
17
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Scientific Directions – HEPAP (P5)
To obtain input to develop this plan, DOE and NSF have asked the HEP advisory committee (HEPAP) for prioritized scientific recommendations that are consistent with current budgetary guidance.
HEPAP has been engaged to develop a 10-plan consistent with four budget scenarios:
• Constant effort at the FY 2008 (Omnibus) funding level
• Constant effort at the FY 2007 funding level
• Doubling of funding starting in FY 2007
• Additional funding above the previous level, in priority order, associated with specific activities needed to mount a leadership program that addresses the scientific opportunities identified in the National Academy (“EPP2010”) report.
Preliminary Comments – March 15, 2008Final Report – May, 2008
18
Department of Energy
Office of Science
The Plan for HEP
The goal must be a world-class, vigorous, and productive program, which recognizes the internationalization of particle physics, incorporates recent and likely budget realities, and ensures the vitality of the field for the next 10-20 years
A plan for U.S. HEP must be developed that is supported by the scientific community, the Administration, Congress and the public.
The scientific community’s role is critically important: The community, through HEPAP and P5, is developing the science-driven plan. To assist with the realization of this plan, the just released FY2009 Budget Request maintains
future options for HEP. The plan will be used to articulate the case for the FY 2010 Budget Request.
The community needs to make the case of the science and benefits to the nation to Congress and the public.
19
Department of Energy
Office of Science
FY 2009 HEP Budget
(Dollars in Thousands) FY 2007 Actual
FY 2008 Appropriation
FY 2009 Request
vs FY 2008
High Energy Physics
Proton Accelerator-Based Physics 343,633 368, 825 419,577 + 14 %
Electron Accelerator-Based Physics 101,284 65,594 48,772 - 25 %
Non-Accelerator Physics 60,655 74,199 86,482 + 17 %
Theoretical Physics 59,955 60,234 63,036 + 5 %
Advanced Technology R&D 186,259a 120,479 187,093 + 0 %
Total, High Energy Physics 751,786a 689,331b 804,960 +17 %
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) Linac Operations (non-add) (51,300) (19,817) (--)
The SLAC linear accelerator (linac) supports operations of the B-factory (funded by HEP) and will also support operations of the Linac Coherent Light Source (currently under construction and funded by Basic Energy Sciences (BES)). With the completion of B-factory operations in FY 2008, SC has been transitioning funding of the SLAC linac from HEP to BES, with FY 2008 representing the third and final year of joint funding with BES. aTotal includes $19,352,000 transferred to SBIR and STTR programs.
b includes an approved reprogramming of prior year balances of $1,014,000
20
Department of Energy
Office of Science
FY 2009 HEP Budget Cross-Cut
(Dollars in Thousands) FY 2007 Actual
FY 2008 Appropriation (January AFP)
FY 2009 Request
vs FY 2008
High Energy Physics
Core Research (incl. Accel. Science) 280,768 282,075 294,497 +4 %
Technology R&D (non-ILC) 88,602 50,784 84,476 +66 %
Facility Operations 290,958 283,602 286,115 +1 %
Completed and Planned Projects 13,550 17,440 66,700 +382 %
R&D Initiatives (ILC, JDEM) 48,082 24,431 45,030 +84 %
Infrastructure 10,474 12,532 7,754 - 38 %
SBIR/STTR 19,352a 17,653 20,388 + 15 %
Total, High Energy Physics 751,786a 689,331b 804,960 + 17 %
aTotal includes $19,352,000 transferred to SBIR and STTR programs.
b includes an approved reprogramming of prior year balances of $1,014,000
21
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Total Project
Cost (TPC)
Total Estimate
d Cost (TEC)
Prior Year
Appro-priation
sFY
2007FY
2008FY
2009Completio
n Date
Large Hadron Collider–CMS Detector, CERN 147,050 71,789 70,539 1,250 — — FY 2007
NuMI Off-axis Neutrino Appearance (NOvA) Detector, Fermilab 270,000 TBD — 500 — 7,000 FY 2014
Main Injector Experiment v-A (MINERvA), Fermilab 16,800 10,700 — — 5,000 4,900 FY 2010
Reactor Neutrino Detector, Daya Bay, China
32,000 - 34,000 TBD — 500 3,960
13,000 FY 2012
Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K) Near Detector, Tokai, Japan 4,680 2,980 — — 1,980 1,000 FY 2009
Cryogenic Dark Matter Survey, 25kg Detector, SNOLab, Canada
5,000-7,000 TBD — — — 500 FY 2012
Dark Energy Survey, Cerro-Tololo Inter-American Observatory, Chile
24,100 - 26,700 TBD — — 3,610 7,500 FY 2011
Advanced Accelerator R&D Test Facility, TBD
15,000-19,000 TBD — — — 8,000 FY 2013
Current MIE Projects
(EQU costs ONLY; Dollars in Thousands) N
eutr
inos
Par
ticl
e-A
stro
Acc
el
NOTE: Except for CMS, MINERvA, and T2K, all TPCs are preliminary estimates (projects have not yet been baselined)
22
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Dark Matter Searches
Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS-II)
• Direct detection of dark matter with ultracold Ge in Soudan Mine in Minnesota
• Data-taking: Full ops with 5 towers (~5kg active mass) started in 2006 & continuing in 2008.
• New results on exclusion limits on dark matter cross section will be out soon.
Axion Dark Matter Search (ADMX) experiment at Lawrence Livermore Lab in CA Data taking planned in 2008
CDMS-25kg upgrade R&D in FY2008; fabrication starts in FY2009 Deploy in SNOLab by 2012
Evaluating technologies for future as recommended by
DMSAG
.
CDMS detector
23
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Dark Energy
ExperimentsOperating experiments (Stage II): Supernova Cosmology Project, Nearby Supernova Factory, SDSS-II
Providing R&D funds for large-scale experiments (Stage IV): Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)
• Collaboration proposing that DOE fund the camera construction, led by SLAC JDEM – next generation space-based experiment
• Continue R&D for SNAP concept, led by LBNL• FY07 R&D funding for DESTINY and ADEPT
Grants ProgramIn 2007, DOE/HEP supported R&D in key areas identified by the “Dark Energy Task Force report” Received 32 Dark Energy R&D proposals
• Partially funded 21 – projects include theory, ground and space ($3M total)
In 2008, DOE/HEP again plans to provide “generic” dark energy support Deadline for proposals was 12/18/07
• Received 70 proposals requesting ~ $15.2M involving 198 researchers
24
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Dark Energy - JDEM
Both BEPAC and the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill gave guidance that DOE and NASA should work together on JDEM.
DOE, NASA and OSTP have been meeting regularly to lay out the plan for a mission
Our target is:
• Announcement of Opportunity in 2008
• Selection in 2009
• Launch in the middle of the next decade
25
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Dark Energy Survey (DES)
DES is a Stage III experiment that will provide multiple methods to study dark energy
DOE is fabricating the DECam camera to be installed on the Blanco 4m telescope in Chile
Collaboration with NSF, UK, Spain, Brazil
Joint DOE/NSF review held January 2008: DECam ready for baselining.
Long-lead procurements beginning in 2008; operations in 2012.
DECam Camera
26
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Gamma-ray Astrophysics - Space
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) High-energy (~20-200 GeV) gamma rays using
HEP detector technology Collaboration on the primary instrument, the Large
Area Telescope (LAT), between NASA, DOE, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden
Jan 2006 – LAT instrument fabrication complete Currently undergoing final environmental testing at
NRL & will ship to Kennedy Space Center in March
Renaming contest on the www
May 16, 2008 - GLAST launch scheduled
LAT Detector during assembly
27
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Cosmic Ray Astrophysics
Pierre Auger Observatory – Argentina
Scientific goal is to observe, understand and characterize the very highest energy cosmic rays.
Collaboration with NSF and 17 other countries Installed over 3000 km2 site
• All fluorescence telescopes are operating
• 1570 (out of 1600) surface Cherenkov detectors deployed
Collaboration is working on R&D for Auger-South upgrades & an Auger-North design report
Nov. 2007 results:
Sources of highest energy cosmic rays are most likely active galactic nuclei !
Fluorescence telescope
28
Department of Energy
Office of Science
Future Prospects
Proposals for next-generation tools are starting to come in, or are expected soon:
AGIS
Auger North
HAWC
BOSS/SDSS-III
+ more
An important part of DOE/HEP P5 process and evaluation will be asking how various proposals and directions impact our mission:
“understand how our universe works at its most fundamental level”