Long Range Planning
Pier Oddone
September 24, 2007
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
2
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 $$ for ILC: if it does not happen,
clearly Office of Science would not need the $$
3
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
4
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”
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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 sin2q13” or
build a roadmap that depends on that number
10
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
11
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
12
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
13