1 The Five Year Plan review went well on all counts Review held June 30 - July 2 > 1.5 days of presentations by the Team Panel of nine (Hooper, Bravenec, Hill, Jaeger, Marmar, Post, Strait, Sykes, Takase), all reporting through Eckstrand to DoE All major program emphases and elements endorsed –Priorities accepted; tools desired supported –Our approach to ST science was endorsed

2 Review marked the end of a long process Results Review Update with Team Describe plans for needed work, scope of sections Ideas Forum Input from you Written summaries by July 5 June ‘02 Research Forum Update to Team on group activity 8/1 - 8/2 9/9 - 9/10 ST Community WS Seek community input For 5 Year Plan, programmatic part (a la Tokamak W.S.) 3rd Week of November, after APS Updated plan presented to PAC 1st week of January PAC input, October Dry run of programmatic 5 Year Plan Discuss elements Develop plans for needed modeling Team begins writing of some sections Section writing, modeling updates, Topical discussions Scenario development 9/ /1 Iterate with Team Review of NSTX Five Year Plan June ‘03 Obtain detailed charge from DoE

3 The panel’s charge was broad 1. Assess the importance and relevance of the proposed 5-year research program with respect to the goals of the U.S. fusion program as outlined in the Integrated Program Planning Activity (IPPA)… Is the research plan likely to accomplish the IPPA objectives? How well is the research coordinated with other national and international innovative confinement concept research activities? Also, where applicable, please comment on the importance and relevance of the proposed NSTX program to the ITPA and tokamak physics in general. 2. Assess the scientific and technical merit of the ongoing and planned research. Does the research proposed address science issues at the forefront of the field? How well does the ongoing and planned research maintain a U. S. leadership position in key areas of fusion research? Are the proposed diagnostics, other facility upgrades, interactions with theory and modeling, and collaborations adequate to carry out the proposed research program?

4 The existing and proposed research were seen as highly relevant IPPA Goal 2: Resolve outstanding scientific issues and establish reduced-cost paths to more attractive fusion energy systems by investigating a broad range of innovative magnetic confinement configurations. “The proposed program is well matched to IPPA Goal 2” “The outstanding scientific issues for the ST have been identified… and are being addressed … in the 5-year plan. “ 5-Year Objective: Make preliminary determination of the attractiveness of the spherical torus (ST), by assessing high-beta stability, confinement, self- consistent high-bootstrap operation, and acceptable divertor heat flux, for  pulse >>  E. Progress on this objective is substantial… “We anticipate that NSTX will successfully address most of the IPPA objectives …” “Given likely budgets, the divertor objective may best be met by collaborations…and other science may be advanced by collaborations” “Proposed upgrades of diagnostics, EBW, etc., will carry NSTX well beyond the 5-year IPPA objectives”

5 Importance and relevance (2) The research is well coordinated with other ICCs and with STs in particular Good coordination with MAST… Collaborations are underway or being considered with CDX-U, HIT-2, Pegasus, and other STs around the world … Value in EBW research for other low-field ICC’s Much of the research is important and relevant to the ITPA and to tokamaks in general The ST parameters… will extend tokamak confinement scalings to new regimes… extending their validity There is a good opportunity to explore electron transport physics in NSTX as  E … opportunity for a major contribution to tokamak physics.

6 Scientific and Technical Merit seen as high “We were very impressed by the quality of the science and the technical achievements of the NSTX team.” The proposed research on the ST: “…is world-class and makes important contributions to tokamak research in general.” “NSTX is clearly at the forefront of fusion research and establishes the US as a world leader” The proposed facility upgrades and diagnostics “…are fully adequate to carry out the proposed research.” Reduced budget ==> can’t do it all, which means more scientific risk Major program elements we as a team feel are important were recognized as such by the panel: “The EBW heating & CD and the MSE diagnostic are critical to the success of the plan and need adequate resources to maximize their success”

7 High level comments on the science include… “External control coils are potentially a powerful tool for enhancement of stability…” –NTM stabilization may be important, remains to be tested; Improving shaping capability endorsed Apparent “ETG-only” transport is unique…” Endorse plans to verify this experimentally (high-k turbulence diagnostics) and theoretically (nonlinear gyrokinetics). EBWCD is potentially very important in NSTX and should be pursued aggressively. “Does HHFW always heat as assumed in the integrated modeling?” … “Is there enough confidence that it can be used for p(r) control?” “ … effects such as edge absorption should be included in the work.” Demonstrating solenoid-free startup should be (and is) a high priority –CHI is hard; progress is good. Broad approach for startup endorsed “The focus on particle control appears necessary…, and lithium surface conditioning appears to be a cost effective way to reduce recycling.” Theory and modeling: a good job in addressing the unique scientific issues in NSTX. “Committee endorses the NSTX team vision that integrated scenario modeling has the promise to greatly improve operational efficiency and optimize the selection of experiments”

8 The panel’s charge was broad (con’t)… 3. Evaluate the competency of the proposed senior research personnel and the adequacy of the proposed resources. Assess the program's governance practices and the performance of the direct program management as well as the support provided from the host institution. How well qualified are the applicant's personnel to carry out the proposed research? Do the collaborative arrangements achieve the goal of an integrated NSTX research team? 4. Assess the reasonableness of the proposed costs for fusion research and operations… 5. Assess the current level of performance of facility operations. Are milestones being met? Are planned operating, maintenance, repair and upgrade schedules being achieved? Are environment, safety, health and quality assurance matters being addressed appropriately?

9 Personnel and Organization The senior PPPL and NSTX management personnel are highly competent. –It is a major challenge to coordinate the efforts of the large NSTX team … as effectively as they have done. A sign of health for the program: –Many of the presentations were given by “the next generation.” The future leaders are being prepared. The NSTX team has successfully applied the TFTR capabilities … The NSTX team has built a successful national and international collaboration program

10 Proposed Costs and Budget The proposed total costs (a 10% increase over the President’s request) represent a reasonable request … The balance between hardware and diagnostic upgrades seems OK –concern about scope of boundary physics effort If further reductions are mandated (below the President’s budget), hold onto the EBW and non-solenoid startup priorities –Utilize collaboration and modelling where possible

11 Performance of Facility Operations Project completed important milestones close to or ahead of schedule, through FY02. Panel liked the approach and professionalism in dealing with the TF failure Project has excellent safety record and is working to be even safer. The integration of on-site collaborators into operations is thorough and effective