FY’06 Budget Implications for Fermilab and MINER A From presentations by Steve Holmes and Mike Witherell

President’s FY2006 Budget Request Some Relevant Language (HEP) Combined DOE/Dept of Science & HEPAP “Because of its broad relevance in addressing many of the long-term goals of the HEP program, and its unique potential for new discoveries, the highest priority is given to the planned operations, upgrades and infrastructure of the Tevatron program at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.” “The engineering design of the BTeV (“B Physics at the Tevatron”) experiment, which was scheduled to begin in FY 2005, as a new Major Item of Equipment, will be terminated by the end of FY2005.” “The future of Fermilab past the end of the decade will be the subject of a continuing dialogue between the Administration, Congress, the laboratory, and the broader U.S. and international particle physics communities.” “In order to address the opportunity for significant new future research options, R&D in support of an international electron-positron linear collider is increased relative to FY 2005… To provide a nearer-term future program, and to preserve future research options, R&D for other new accelerator and detector technologies, particularly in the emerging area of neutrino physics, will also increase. ”

It hits 0 in 2030…..

 FY 2006 Request is 3.9% below FY 2005 Appropriation  The budget forces us to make tough choices.  No new starts in FY 2006  Prioritizing ongoing programs Office of Science FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request FY 2004 Comparable Approp. FY 2005 Comparable Approp. FY 2006 President’s Request FY 2006 Request vs FY 2005 Appropriation Basic Energy Sciences9911,1051, % Advanced Scientific Computing Res % Biological & Environmental Research % High Energy Physics % Nuclear Physics % Fusion Energy Sciences % Other % Total, Science3,5483,6053, % ($M)

Planning for the Future  The current U.S. accelerator-based program is world-leading, but finite in lifetime t PEP-II and the Tevatron will ramp down toward the end of the decade; miniBooNE, MINOS also  The Linear Collider is our highest priority for a future major facility, t but timescale is uncertain and cannot be done without either an increase in resources or a reduction in cost  LHC participation will be a central piece of the program Hence We believe we should be planning for a portfolio of medium scale, medium term experiments to start construction in the period  Scientific opportunities are compelling t neutrino physics (APS study); dark matter, dark energy…  Resources will become available, through redirection

New Initiatives  In order to inform the Department of HEP’s intent to pursue several new scientific topics, we plan to prepare draft requests for approval of CD-0 “Statement of Mission Need”, including A generic reactor-based neutrino experiment to measure  13 A generic off-axis accelerator-based neutrino experiment for  13 and to resolve the neutrino mass hierarchy A generic high intensity neutrino beam facility for neutrino CP-violation experiments A generic neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment to probe the Majorana nature of neutrinos A generic underground experiment to search for direct evidence of dark matter A generic ground-based dark energy experiment  In order to be ready to move forward expeditiously, this process will be in parallel with a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) and P5 process that I will describe tomorrow.

Suggested Criteria  Scientific Potential : to what extent does the project have the ability to change our fundamental view of the universe?  Relevance: is the science important to DOE/HEP’s mission?  Value: does the level of scientific potential match the level of investment?  Alternatives: are there more cost-effective alternatives to get at the same (or most of the same) physics?  Timeliness: will the results come at the right time to have sufficient impact?  International: are similar efforts underway in other countries? Are there potential international partners for this effort?  Infrastructure: Does the project exploit, or help to evolve, existing infrastucture (including human capital)

What next for Fermilab?  In FY 2009, at the end of Tevatron Run II, Fermilab will still be operating NuMI/MINOS for at least another year, and will participate in LHC and various particle astrophysics programs. The future of Fermilab past the end of the decade will be the subject of a continuing dialogue between the Administration, Congress, the laboratory, and the broader U.S. and international particle physics communities.  We now look forward to working with Fermilab management to develop the strongest possible future for the laboratory as well as for the overall HEP program.  The laboratory’s Long Range Plan has laid out a broad and exciting program for the next decade, centered on the International Linear Collider, significant new initiatives in neutrino physics, the LHC physics center, and particle astrophysics and underground experiments.  We are committed to maintaining Fermilab as one of the world leading scientific facilities.

Ramifications  Fortunately the alternative directions put forth in the President’s Budget Request align extremely well with the vision established in the Fermilab Long Range Plan ( t Between them the Proton Driver and Linear Collider have the potential to provide both an intermediate and long term future for Fermilab.  Short Term Actions: t We will begin immediately redirecting(BTeV) resources into Proton Plan, Proton Driver, and Linear Collider. Current working model is (M&S + SWF):

Ramifications  Short Term Actions (cont). t The second meeting of the Proton Driver Scientific Advisory Committee is scheduled for February 24. t We have a Director’s Review of the Proton Driver technical design scheduled for March  These are important reviews designed to provide strong support for a CD-0 that could issued by the Department of Energy later this year.  My belief is that the expenditures outlined on the prior page could support a Proton Driver construction start in the ~2008 time frame (and a linear collider construction start somewhat later). So what are the (bureaucratic) steps/hurdles?...

DOE “Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets”

Summary We have a future… It’s just going to get here a little sooner than we had anticipated.

BTeV cancelled - effect on MINER A  Fermilab available support for other tasks increases  Fermilab $ available for other projects - within ms of BTeV announcement redirected to R&D of future projects as mentioned  Help in project management already suggested  Engineering support should be less problematic  HOWEVER, CMS already gobbling up anything that walks by  D0/CDF still high priority and they also get first pick of available resources.  We want to clearly define our needs from Fermilab and make sure they are in the appropriate cue.  This is the goal of this afternoon’s session.

DIS initiative  HERA to be turned off in 2007 leaving many unanswered questions that DIS can address  Many strong groups looking for a “DIS fix”  s with John Dainton (Liverpool), Alan Caldwell (MPI Munich), Max Klein (DESY), Aharon Levy (Tel Aviv DIS conf series chair) and Halina Abramowicz (Tel Aviv) over the last three week - MINER A now in the mix.  Tread carefully selling MINER A as a “DIS experiment”. I’ve been upfront in saying we want to study the transition region and high-x phenomena.  Bring others in the discussion - Kevin, Donna, Thia, Ioana.  Session on Future of DIS at DIS’05 in Madison, late April. Invitation for a MINER A presentation.