July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 1 PPA All-Hands: Debrief from the SLAC Program Review Steven M. Kahn Associate Laboratory Director and Director of Particle Physics and Astrophysics Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 2 Overview *This will be a short presentation - You all have a copy of the closeout report, and I want to leave the time mainly for discussion. *Some general comments, though: –This is the last of the “generic program reviews” that we will have for several years. In the new organization, DOE-OHEP will review individual programs (i.e. B&R codes) through dedicated reviews in Germantown. Only Fermilab will receive annual reviews. –DOE organized this more in the style of a Lehman review, than as a typical program review. They wanted comments on specific programs, not just general overviews of quality. –The Committee took explicit note of the pressures we have been facing. –We received lots of praise privately from individual consultants. The closeout report is more “muted” in tone. The committee was given a lot of direction by DOE during the executive sessions. –David, Charlotte, and I had a meeting with Dennis Kovar and Glen Crawford after the closeout. We learned a lot from this second meeting.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 3 Summary of Closeout Report *BaBar Run 7: –Strong praise for performance of PEP-II team and the BaBar collaboration in Run 7. –DOE “very impressed” with the quick turn-around of the  b discovery. This was the highlight of the meeting. –The Committee was heavy with flavor-sympathizers: They were concerned that we might not be investing enough into BaBar analysis, and wanted to ensure that adequate resources are there to fully mine the data set.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 4 Summary of Closeout Report *ATLAS: –There was explicit endorsement of the SLAC emphasis on expanding the ATLAS effort as our highest near-term priority for particle physics. –In general, they were very complimentary about the accomplishments of the ATLAS group to date. –They were quite “warm” to the idea of a West Coast ATLAS Physics Center, based at SLAC. DOE also seemed to resonate with this. –However, they need to see endorsement by US-ATLAS and the ATLAS leadership for a large ATLAS-expansion at SLAC. This must be presented as a priority for the US investment in LHC as a whole. At the level we are proposing, SLAC would be the largest US institution in ATLAS. –They explicitly recommended that we provide further detailed planning information on ATLAS. –There is a concern that this program still has not had sufficient buy-in from SLAC leadership (faculty and senior staff).

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 5 Summary of Closeout Report *KIPAC (general): –Strong praise for the strength of KIPAC research programs generally. –However, residual confusion over what is DOE-supported and what is not, and why DOE support is critical for this enterprise. –They commented that the program is well-aligned to the P5 recommendations for the Cosmic Frontier, but still struggled with the connection to HEP for much of the KIPAC discussion. –I don’t think DOE is comfortable with simply buying into a “piece of an institute”. They want to see a clear rationale for DOE-HEP funding in this field.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 6 Summary of Closeout Report *GLAST: –Strong praise for the achievement of the GLAST team in delivering the LAT and preparing the ISOC for initial science operations. –The GLAST talk was the second major highlight of the plenary session. –Positive endorsement of the science directions we are pursuing for LAT analysis. –I expected more questioning of our justification for the size of the GLAST budget. This didn’t really occur. –However, there was “backroom chatter” about the connection to HEP. I don’t see this as a threat to GLAST, but it makes them cautious about future particle astro initiatives.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 7 Summary of Closeout Report *LSST: –General praise for the proposed program and the accomplishments of the LSST camera team in bringing the camera design to a more mature phase. –The discussion of LSST database issues and the proposed SciDB effort was a big hit. –I saw less questioning about the relevance of LSST to HEP in this review. The explicit P5 endorsements seem to have put that issue to rest. –However, DOE says the eventual go-ahead on this project will depend on NSF and on the overall DOE-HEP budget. It is still not a “done deal”.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 8 Summary of Closeout Report *SNAP: –General support for SNAP concept as a JDEM candidacy. –Endorsement of the roles SLAC has taken in the project, given our core competencies. –Some feeling that the role could and should be expanded in the data processing and archiving arena. They noted that the GLAST experience in these areas should be relevant to SNAP. –“Backroom comment”: How committed is SLAC to SNAP? Should there be more faculty and senior staff involvement?

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 9 Summary of Closeout Report *EXO: –Praise for progress made in bringing EXO-200 into its operational phase at WIPP. –Endorsement of EXO-200 program as a pathfinder for full EXO. *Theory: –Strong praise for quality of both the HEP and PAC theoretical research programs. –Especially supportive of the role these efforts play in supporting the experimental efforts in both HEP and PAC. –Praise for distinguished record of producing students and postdocs. –Recommendation: Generation of explicit plan for the support of computational needs in PAC.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 10 Summary of Closeout Report *PEP-II Operations: –Very strong praise for the performance of the PEP-II team over the 10- year operational lifetime of the facility. –Concern that this expertise may get lost or dissipate. –Recommendation: Find some way of documenting the lessons learned from PEP-II, in terms of design, technical solutions, difficult problems, and issues in basic accelerator physics. *Accelerator R&D (General): –Strong praise for the breadth and depth of the program, and its distinguished history. –Strong praise for maintaining a vibrant program in the face of the serious cuts resulting from the omnibus bill. –Some sense that the program may be too broad and unfocused. –Recommendation: Develop a 5-year plan for accelerator R&D and SLAC with a more explicit focus and rationale.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 11 Summary of Closeout Report *Super B: –Endorsement for use of PEP-II hardware for Super B and for a SLAC role in the project. (This particular Committee was enthusiastic about Super B!) *General Accelerator Physics: –Praise for work on electron-cloud effects and mediation, ATF2 collaboration, beam studies, and advanced accelerator computation efforts. –Comment that the program is making important contributions in a wide range of areas despite the shutdown of PEP-II and the curtailment of the ILC effort in FY08.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 12 Summary of Closeout Report *ILC: –SLAC has a distinguished history and has made remarkable progress, despite the setbacks. –If ILC gets restarted, SLAC has a clearly defined role and will be a key contributor. –SLAC should continue to receive support to address high priority issues for a future linear collider. *High-Gradient R&D: –Work is high quality and well-motivated for future HEP applications. Praise for collaborative efforts with KEK and CERN. –Program makes strong use of, and is strongly dependent on, the healthy interaction with the Klystron Dept. Balance between BES and HEP support of basic accelerator physics and RF component fabrication is a concern. –Plans for a future on-site X-band accelerator test facility were not described in enough detail for evaluation.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 13 Summary of Closeout Report *FACET and Laser Acceleration R&D: –FACET proposal received strong endorsement, given its uniqueness as a beam-driven plasma wakefield research facility. –Laser acceleration program capitalizes less on SLAC unique core competencies. The committee recommended that this be developed into a more collaborative effort with outside academic and industrial contributors. *ESA Beam-Test Facility: –The Committee endorsed the upgrade of the PPS in ESA to enable use of this facility for electron beam tests.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 14 Summary of Closeout Report *Detector R&D: –Extensive recounting of SLAC’s Detector R&D program in terms of silicon detector development, simulation, electronics etc. –All elements endorsed, and the program was described as well- aligned with P5. –DOE has a new concept for Detector R&D, and we had intentionally packaged our presentation to align to this. The feedback is that this worked pretty well. –The concept of a beam test facility was strongly endorsed. –Recommendation: SLAC should submit an explicit proposal to establish a beam test facility in ESA.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 15 Summary of Closeout Report *Scientific Computing: –The Committee (and DOE) struggled to understand the funding structure for SCCS - a special breakout was commissioned on the fly to address this topic. –In general, SCCS was praised for its accomplishments on BaBar and GLAST. However, concerns were raised on how things will transition to GLAST, ATLAS, and other particle astrophysics applications. –Coordination with BES-funded activities is clearly necessary. –Lab should continue its on-going planning efforts to get this worked out.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 16 Summary of Closeout Report *BaBar D&D: –“Excellent presentation”. –Metals moratorium is a complicating factor and needs to be better understood. –Noted potential re-use for Super B. *PEP-II D&D: –Plan is for transition to the minimum maintenance state. That is well-understood. –However, the end-point for PEP-II is not understood. Could involve reuse of components for PEP-X, Super B, or other projects. –Recommendation: PEP-II D&D should be projectized and moved out of PPA. It should be treated as a lab-wide project.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 17 Summary of Closeout Report *Organization, Management, and Transition Planning: –Recognition of the pressures we have been under given the transition in Lab stewardship to BES, the severe cut in funding in FY08, and the uncertainty in our future research programs. –The PPA Strategic plan was found to be well-aligned with P5 and with national priorities for HEP. –However, it involves many elements, the sum total of which is probably not consistent with likely funding scenarios. –The Lab and DOE will have to make choices. –Scientific computing requires more planning and better coordination with BES programs. –PEP-II D&D should be moved out of PPA. –Strong praise for Laboratory and PPA Management.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 18 Reorganization of OHEP

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 19 Post Closeout Discussion with DOE *There are still a number of issues with our strategic plan in terms of the budget allocations among B&R codes for FY09 and beyond. *The allocations they have adopted are somewhat arbitrary, and are based on historical assumptions dating back at least 1.5 years. However, it is not easy for them to change these allocations in the new structure that OHEP has adopted. Program managers are themselves being given strict guidance - generally flat + escalation. Increases in particular areas need to be justified in a national context. The fact that we are proposing reductions in other areas is not seen as relevant. *Dennis Kovar has a concept where the “core” at each Lab is held flat with escalation, while the total budget may rise and fall as projects come and go. Core includes physicist staff and some technical personnel that are tied to core competencies. *SLAC has traditionally included physicist salaries in BaBar operations. That creates problems now, because BaBar operations will wind down now that the B-factory has been shut off. *Our attempts to move these physicist salaries back into research looks like a growth in the “core”. That is the crux of the problem.

July 23, 2008PPA All-HandsPage 20 Post Closeout Discussion with DOE *There is also concern that we should not wind down electron accelerator- based research as quickly as we have proposed because of the potential liabilities with BaBar and PEP-II D&D. The net result is a more gradual transition to ATLAS. *There is also a threat in the Non-Accelerator area. For technical reasons, we are projecting a major increase in this area: –Movement of observational work out of theory. –Movement of LSST out of Detector R&D. –Increases for LSST and SNAP. *This increase may not be sustainable. Non-accelerator research is being held flat with escalation at the national level. *How this plays out will depend on the final budget for FY09. If we get the President’s request, we may be okay. Otherwise, there will be problems.