1. US Particle Accelerator School Sub-committee Report: Basic Energy Sciences Facilities Prioritization William A. Barletta Director, United States Particle Accelerator School Department of Physics, MIT

2. US Particle Accelerator School Members of Subcommittee on BES Facilities Prioritization John Hemminger (co-chair)University of California-Irvine William Barletta (co-chair)MIT Simon BareUOP Gordon BrownStanford University John SpenceArizona State Ernie HallGE Global Research Bill McCurdyLBNL/Universiry of California-Davis John TranquadaBNL Doug TobiasUniversity of California-Irvine Sunil Sinha Rob McQueeny University of California-San Diego Ames Laboratory Tony RollettCarnegie Mellon Monica Olvera de la CruzNorthwestern Gary RubloffUniversity of Maryland Keith MoffattUniversity of Chicago Rob DimeoNIST

3. US Particle Accelerator School Charge to the committee  Provide input for a 10-year prioritization of scientific facilities in their respective programs from 2014 to 2024  Basis for characterization 1.Ability of the facility to contribute to world-leading science 2.Readiness of the facility for construction  What to consider 1.Present & proposed facilities listed by BES 2.Potential facilities that require a minimum investment of $100 M  Provide a report that assigns each facility to a category & provides a short justification for that categorization Do not rank order the facilities

4. US Particle Accelerator School Ability of the facility to contribute to world-leading science (2014- 2024)  Would it answer the most important scientific questions  Could other facilities answer these questions;  Would it contribute to many areas of research  Would the facility address needs of the broad community of users including those supported by other agencies  What is the level of user demand  Place each facility or upgrade in one of 4 categories: 1.Absolutely central 2.Important 3.Lower priority 4.Don't know enough yet

5. US Particle Accelerator School Readiness for construction  Has the concept of the facility been formally studied  What is the level of confidence that the technical challenges involved in building the facility can be met  Is the R&D performed to date sufficient to assure technical feasibility  Is the cost to build & operate the facility understood  Place each facility in one of three categories: 1.ready to initiate construction; 2.significant scientific/engineering challenges to resolve before initiating construction 3.mission and technical requirements not yet fully defined

6. US Particle Accelerator School Briefings to the sub-committee  APS & APS-U Eric Isaacs (ANL)  NSLS & NSLS-IISteve Dierker (BNL)  SSRL, LCLS, & LCLS-II Chi-Chang Kao (SLAC)  ALS & NGLSPaul Alivisatos (LBNL)  HIFAR, SNS & Second Target Station Thom Mason (ORNL)  Lujan Neutron Scattering Center Mark Bourke (LANL)  Center for Functional Nanomaterials Emilio Mendez (BNL)  Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies David Morris (LANL)  Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences Sean Smith (ORNL)  Center for Nanoscale Materials Amanda Petford-Long (ANL)  Molecular Foundry Omar Yaghi (LBNL) Facilities also submitted written input to the sub-committee

7. US Particle Accelerator School Characterization of Existing Facilities

8. US Particle Accelerator School Advance Light Source  ALS has a world-wide reputation for excellence in the use of soft X-ray synchrotron radiation science  Strong user demand & high productivity with strong impact  ALS is a leader in developing tools for soft X-ray science  Strong international competition The ALS is “important” to US “world-leading science”

9. US Particle Accelerator School Advanced Photon Source  Leading US source for hard X- rays  Optimized for very bright x ‐ rays in medium (2 ‐ 15 keV) & hard ( >15 keV) energy ranges  Large user demand (>5000 users)  Strong competition from European & Japanese light sources The APS is “absolutely central” to US “world-leading science”

10. US Particle Accelerator School National Synchrotron Light Source  Long history of high productivity and high impact  Large user demand  Diverse Capabilities over Broad Spectral Range  Will cease operations no later than Sep, 2014  Operations at Brookhaven will transfer to NSLS-II NSLS operation is “lower priority” for US “world-leading science”

11. US Particle Accelerator School National Synchrotron Light Source-II  Large, ultra-low emittance ring  Capable of housing 50 beamlines  30 are presently under development  Potential to be best in class from IR to hard X-rays  Short pulse operation (~15 ps rms)  On schedule for early completion in June, 2014  Presently – 85% complete NSLS-II is “absolutely central” to US “world-leading science”

12. US Particle Accelerator School Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource  Mid-energy x-ray synchrotron user facility  In 2004, successfully completed a major upgrade  Exciting potential for sub-ps X-rays  ~1600 users with high user satisfaction  Operational synergies with LCLS SSRL is “important” to US “world-leading science”

13. US Particle Accelerator School Linac Coherent Light Source  World’s first hard X-ray FEL  A stunning success for US science  Uses last third of SLAC linac  Highly over-subscribed  (~25% get beam time)  60% of papers in high impact journals LCLS is “absolutely central” to US “world-leading science”

14. US Particle Accelerator School Spallation Neutron Source  World’s highest power spallation source  Highly competitive in machine capability  Neutron instruments in US are far fewer than in Europe  Steady growth in users  Significant headroom for power upgrade SNS is “absolutely central” to US “world-leading science”

15. US Particle Accelerator School High Flux Isotope Reactor  Nation’s highest flux continuous neutron beams  99% reliability operations  An exceptional resource for materials irradiation & neutron activation analysis  Significant national security usage  Continuing mission in isotope production HFIR is “important” to US “world-leading science”

16. US Particle Accelerator School Lujan Neutron Scattering Center  Strongly leverages NNSA investment in LANSCE  Extra capability & capacity is helpful  Neutron instruments in US are far fewer than in Europe  Accessories not at the other facilities  high field, high pressure, plutonium, irradiate materials  exploited the sample environments, in situ strain is unique  important but not essential LNSC is “lower priority” for US “world-leading science”

17. US Particle Accelerator School Characterization of Nanoscience Research Centers

18. US Particle Accelerator School General comments  Nanoscience Research Centers add high value through twin missions of pursuing top-quality science and enabling the same for external users through access to NSRC facilities and/or collaboration with NSRC researchers.  They are commended for the quality of their research, strong connections to relevant research centers, & their successes in enabling successes of external users.  The committee identified particular value in synergies  between science programs of NSRC researchers,  special facilities they develop,  benefits available to users

19. US Particle Accelerator School Center for Nanoscale Materials (ANL)  CNM exploits the hard x-ray nanoprobe at APS  a unique facility - for a host of collaborations with key industry labs as well as universities  Excellent access to environmental nanoprobes CNM is “absolutely central” for US “world-leading science”

20. US Particle Accelerator School Center for Functional Nanomaterials (BNL)  World class TEM capabilities.  Plans in place for strong coupling with NSLS II CFN is “important” for US “world-leading science”

21. US Particle Accelerator School The Molecular Foundry (LBNL)  Strong cross-disciplinary portfolio to support users in one building  Enable staff & users to take their projects all the way to screening & prototyping.  Very strong chemical synthesis of nanoscale materials integrated with characterization/measurements  Well coupled to leadership scale computing platform at LBNL & to ALS The Molecular Foundry is “absolutely central” for US “world-leading science”

22. US Particle Accelerator School Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences (ORNL)  Excellent in theory & scanning probes  Well coupled to leadership scale computing platform at ORNL CNMS is “important” for US “world-leading science”

23. US Particle Accelerator School  Creates a growing number of Discovery Platforms  Uses SNL MESA facility & CINT labs, as new MEMS-based science platforms readily delivered to users or employed in collaborations with CINT scientists.  Unique capability for user platforms Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (SNL/LANL) CINT is “absolutely central” for US “world-leading science”

24. US Particle Accelerator School Sub-committee characterization of Proposed Upgrades & Facilities

25. US Particle Accelerator School Advanced Photon Source Upgrade  Keeps US capabilities highly competitive with hard X-ray facilities in Europe & Asia  Offers exciting possibilities for short pulse X-rays (~2 ps) ∗ Hardware approach for 2 ps pulses requires vetting this spring The APS-U is “absolutely central” to US leadership in science APS-U is “ready to initiate construction” *

26. US Particle Accelerator School Linear Coherent Light Source - II  Maintains LCLS leadership in ultra-short pulse science  Broadens LCLS capabilities  Extends wavelength range  Substantial Increase in average brightness  Substantially increases LCLS capacity LCLS-II is “absolutely central” to US leadership in science LCLS-II is “ready to initiate construction”

27. US Particle Accelerator School Next Generation Light Source  High rep rate, soft X-ray source  Would be the world’s highest average power electron accelerator  Further discussion based on BESAC Light Source Charge ∗ Would in principle allow unique, multiple pulse experiments, including the possibility of "multi-dimensional" experiments ∗ Would in principle access science at the ~ 1fs time scale NGLS could be “absolutely central” * to US leadership in science NGLS has “significant scientific/engineering challenges to resolve before initiating construction”

28. US Particle Accelerator School SNS Second Target Station  Increases SNS power > 2 MW to improve neutron scattering performance  Will keep SNS competitive with ESS  Adds new instruments to US capabilities & capacity  Helps but does not close capacity gap with Western Europe  Which instruments to be decided with strong user input SNS-STS is “absolutely central” to US leadership in science SNS-STS has “scientific/engineering challenges to resolve before initiating construction”

29. US Particle Accelerator School Additional opportunities discussed by the sub-committee If you wish to add facilities or upgrades, please consider only those that require a minimum investment of $100 M

30. US Particle Accelerator School Future Light Sources  In addition to the completion of NSLS-II & upgrades of APS & LCLS A future light source is “absolutely central” to continued US leadership in science  All options (FEL, ERL, Ultimate Storage Ring) have “significant scientific/engineering challenges to resolve before initiating construction”  We look forward to the BESAC study this spring

31. US Particle Accelerator School Discussion