Report From NSAC 2012 Committee Robert Atcher LANL Peter Jacobs LBNL Jamie Nagle Colorado Jeffrey Binder ORNL David Kaplan Washington Kenneth Nash (ACS) Washington State Jeffery Blackmon Louisiana State Joshua Klein Pennsylvania Allena Opper George Washington Gail Dodge Old Dominion Karlheinz Langanke GSI Jorge Piekarewicz Florida State Alexandra Gade Michigan State Zheng-tian Lu ANL Julia Velkovska Vanderbilt Susan Gardner Kentucky Robert McKeown Jefferson Lab Rajagopal Venugopalin BNL Donald Geesaman (Chair) Curtis Meyer ANL Carnegie Mellon Current 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 2nd year. • Majorana demonstrator in progress and neutron EDM R&D continuing. CUORE equipment funding complete in 2012. The 2013 President’s Budget Request brings challenges FY12 NP down 3.5% from FY11 and NSCL held flat FY13 expect about flat From Dr. Brinkman’s and Dr. Hallman’s slides 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 not clear what happens. • 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 Underground Lab – now in the hands of HEP at DOE Observations projecting 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). The 2007 Long Range Plan Recommendations of the 2007 NSAC Long Range Plan 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. 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 NSAC Subcommittee Robert Tribble (Chair) Adam Burrows George Crabtree Joseph Carlson Brad Filippone Stuart Freedman Haiyan Gao Donald Geesaman Barbara Jacek Peter Jacobs David Kaplan Kirby Kemper Krishna Kumar Naomi Makins Curtis Meyer James Nagle Witold Nazarewicz Krishna Rajagopol Michael Ramsey-Musolf Lee Sobotka Michael Wiescher John Wilkerson Texas A&M Princeton ANL LANL Caltech UC-Berkeley Duke ANL Stony Brook LBNL Washington Florida State Massachusetts Illinois – UC Carnegie-Mellon Colorado Tennessee/ORNL M.I.T. Wisconsin Washington U. St. Louis Notre Dame North Carolina State Plans for the Subcommittee Discussion prior to charge at April APS meeting May15: Organizational meeting in Washington Area Sept 7-9: 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/ What do we need from the community • Willingness to contribute, possibly on a very rapid time scale, to providing input to NSAC and the subcommittee • Support for the process and, when complete, the recommendations. • • • • • • General Considerations It is absolutely essential that the process is viewed as fair and deliberate The recommendations must be based on the science opportunities and the future of the field, not institutional concerns. We must carry out a process that the entire field will embrace and speak with one voice. Circling the wagons and shooting inward is destructive. Making arguments about the relative value of other Office of Science or NSF programs is destructive We cannot make decisions based on possible or perceived external political factors 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 for NuPECC. 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, should be released next week.