BNL Overview DOE Annual HEP Program Review Brookhaven National Laboratory April 17-19, 2006 Sam Aronson

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 2/8 BNL Overview n The state of the Lab: The CFN is in construction NSLS II preparing for CD1 RHIC II preparing for CD0 n The state of HENP: NP – its health is a key to a healthy HEP program! –RHIC is operating –EBIS is in construction –e-cooling R&D is under way –Detector upgrades are under way HEP –You’re here to assess that…

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 3/8 Glossary n AARD – Advanced Accelerator R&D Group n ATF – Accelerator Test Facility n CFN – Center for Functional Nanomaterials n DETF – Dark Energy Task Force (HEPAP) n EBIS – Electron Beam Ion Source n FFAG – Fixed-focus Alternating Gradient n LSST – Large Synoptic Survey Telescope n NSLS II – National Synchrotron Light Source 3 rd generation facility n NuSAG – Neutrino Science Assessment Group n QCDOC – Quantum Chromodynamics on a Chip n RHIC II – Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider luminosity upgrade project n RSVP – Rare Symmetry Violating Processes Project n SMD – Superconducting Magnet Division VLB O – Very Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment n WFO – work for others

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 4/8 The state of HEP n Reorganized experimental groups post-RSVP Collider physics –US-ATLAS, D0 –ILC Detector R&D (with Instrumentation Div.) Fixed target & non-accelerator based physics –Neutrinos: MINOS, reactor  13, very long baseline –Cosmology, astrophysics: LSST Strong theory & accelerator groups –High Energy Theory –Advanced Accelerator R&D (key to Muon Collaboration) –Accelerator Test Facility (HEP, BES) –Superconducting Magnet Division (NP, HEP, WFO) Broad R&D programs –Accelerators: AARD, ATF, SMD –Detectors: ILC, LHC upgrade, astronomical (Physics, Instrumentation)

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 5/8 HEP Overview n Physics: staff ~ 220, HEP staff ~ 90, 60% ATLAS, 40% everything else ATLAS, D0, Theory, MINOS,  13, VLB O, LSST, ATF, AARD, ILC n Superconducting Magnet Division: staff ~ 50 Accelerator and Magnet R&D: LARP, ILC n Instrumentation Division: staff ~ 50 (mostly Lab-funded) ATLAS, ILC, LSST n Collider-Accelerator: staff ~ 370 (mostly NP-funded) Neutrino R&D (with FNAL), AGS (if g-2) ~$28M/yr in Budget Authority

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 6/8 Current/near-term issues to focus on n ATLAS Staffing Research Program funding Travel funding Computing Infrastructure n SMD Core competencies Survivability options ALD Review in June n Theory Staffing n LSST DETF  P5 New research group n Neutrinos Decision on Daya Bay Join VLB O study w/ FNAL (g-2)  P5 Funding n AARD HEPAP Subpanel R&D review n ATF Staffing

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 7/8 Broader issues to focus on n Alignment with national goals n Health of current efforts n Viability of path forward SMD is an important health & viability case n Right-sizing the BNL HEP effort Balancing scientific vs. technical personnel Balancing core effort vs. project effort

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 8/8 Final thoughts (until tomorrow) n Lots of material yet to be presented Some of the important themes, especially in the experimental program are new since the last review n Keep in mind the broad issues BNL (as well as DOE) can benefit from your opinion on whether this program makes sense as a package (as well as from detailed technical assessments)

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 9/8 Summary n The BNL HEP program is in excellent shape < 1 year after RSVP crashed and burned Reorganized, downsized New path forward (ATLAS + neutrinos +  ) Commitments to ongoing efforts maintained (ATLAS, MINOS, D0,  -Collaboration, etc.) Emerging efforts nurtured while the national program is being mapped out (ILC, Daya Bay, LSST) All the components are scientifically very well-motivated n Issues Magnet Division scope and role Breadth of the program vs. staff size n Given the state of the national program (i.e., in flux) we think it is appropriate to be positioned as we are (i.e., pushing our funding envelope)

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 10/8 Outlook n Near term (what could our HEP program look like at the next annual review?) n Assuming encouragements from AAR&D, DETF, P5, ILC Bigger ATLAS Research Program team; core effort ~ same size Neutrino effort slightly increased with R&D-supported (and/or LDRD-supported) staff for a serious Daya Bay effort ATF increased by 1 scientist (initially lab-supported?) Theory, AARD, LSST at ~current size Project planning in C-AD for AGS upgrade for E969 (g-2) Stabilization of SMD based on ILC R&D funding n This will eventually lead to some growth with project funds or program funds above constant effort Based on the above assumption (go-aheads on all fronts)

April 18, 2006 S. Aronson 11/8 Outlook n Longer term (2 years down the road, same assumptions) Increase of LSST effort by 1-2 FTE Growth in ILC R&D g-2 construction n Longer term (> 2 years) US HEP itself is hard to predict on that time scale, without knowing what development track ILC is on Assume ATLAS is a going research enterprise, ILC is a going R&D enterprise Neutrinos? AAR&D? LSST? g-2? If the current portfolio goes ahead as it is now, can expect some further growth in ILC effort, everything else ~flat