Long Range Planning Pier Oddone September 24, 2007

2 If you were Office of Science… If you were Office of Science making a ten year plan…… What would you have received as the “ships of the line” for HEP from the community? LHC Upgrades: uncertain in time scale or scope. Detectors? Accelerators? JDEM/SNAP: $400M assumed by BEPAC ILC: time scale undetermined; is 0.5 TeV enough? Size requires Presidential initiative outside of HEP

3 If you were Office of Science… What would you place in the plan? Clearly an allowance for LHC upgrades. $500M? – but lack of concrete plans and knowledge of what is needed might limit how much and when Clearly $400M for JDEM/SNAP. If selection other than SNAP, we might acquire more astronomers? Not construction $$ for ILC: if it does not happen, clearly Office of Science would not need the $$

4 If you were Office of Science… How much $$ would you put in the plan? HEP will spend >$8B in the next ten years at the present level More than enough for the program proposed - excluding the ILC Way too little for an ILC; need of a separate stream

5 Problems for P5 to solve Problems that arise from the “rules of the road” Problems that arise from competitive facilities in other regions Problems that arise from “selection” of projects as opposed to “roadmap”

6 Rules of the road Operating facilities with essential programs get top priority. Example: Tevatron running Next priority is construction projects with a budget and a schedule R&D programs are squeezable when confronted with the top priorities

7 Problem from the rules of the road We are shutting our major facilities (program done): Tevatron, B-factory, CESR We are not building any large projects. NOvA is the exception and it is modest ($260M for detector and accelerator) Problem: no driver to maintain/increase the resources for the field

8 Competitive situation Energy Frontier: Europe unique for the next one to two decades; ILC is our first priority in the US Intensity frontier: if we do nothing we will lose the lead in proton intensity to JPARC (Japan) and the SPL (Europe) and quark flavor physics to SuperB in Japan or Italy Particle Astrophysics: US has had a leading role and should maintain it with JDEM, LSST

9 Problems with competitive situation In a world with a delayed ILC or no ILC – grave risk that we are left ONLY with accelerator R&D without world leading facilities either at the energy frontier or the intensity frontier Once we are in that bucket: much harder to get out to a position to build the next global facility: the accelerator based program will be smaller

10 Problem: selection vs. roadmap We have selected the projects to start: DES, NOvA, Daya Bay – only NOvA is a “large project”. First step of a roadmap Problem: “…I want a dialog with the HEP community…” leads to “we’ll talk to you in three years when we know more….” Example: can say “wait until we know sin 2  13 ” or build a roadmap that depends on that number

11 Fermilab Steering Group Steering Group NOT to provide a plan A vs. plan B, rather an integrated roadmap with discovery opportunities in the next two decades that: supports the international R&D and engineering design for as early a start of the ILC as possible and supports the development of Fermilab as a potential host site for the ILC; develops options for an accelerator-based high energy physics program in the event the start of the ILC construction is slower than the technically-limited schedule; and

12 Fermilab Steering Group includes the steps necessary to explore higher energy colliders that might follow the ILC or be needed should the results from LHC point toward a higher energy than that planned for the ILC Broad community engagement under the leadership of deputy director Young Kee Kim

13 What we are asking P5 Take into consideration it takes a minimum of four years to break ground on any new project Need recommendations on the roadmap that take account of the full complexity of the world in which we live If the roadmap we propose is to be effective, it needs R&D support for project preparation