doe office of high energy physics report to the astronomy and astrophysics advisory committee

1

Department of Energy

Office of Science

DOE Office of High Energy Physics

Report to theAstronomy and Astrophysics Advisory

Committee

Dennis KovarActing Associate Director for the

Office of High Energy Physics,Office of Science, DOE

February 11, 2008

2


Office of Science

DOE Office of High Energy Physics (HEP)

The mission of the High Energy Physics (HEP) program is to understand how our universe works at its most fundamental level.

• We do this by discovering the most elementary constituents of matter and energy, probing the interactions between them, and exploring the basic nature of space and time itself.

• To enable these discoveries, HEP supports theoretical and experimental research in both elementary particle physics and fundamental accelerator science and other supporting technology.

Includes the understanding of the connections between the physics of elementary particles and the physics that determines the structure of the universe, leading to the investigation of very high energy cosmic acceleration mechanisms

DOE HEP Office provides 90% of the federal support for High Energy Physics research and coordinates with NSF, NASA and international efforts

3


Office of Science

The Scientific Opportunities of HEPThe Scientific Opportunities of HEP

The [National Academy EPP 2010] committee arrived at three strong conclusions regardingBoth particle physics and the U.S. role in this global scientific and technological enterprise:

“Particle physics plays an essential role in the broader enterprise of the physical sciences. It inspires U.S. students, attracts talent from around the world, and drives critical intellectual

and technological advances in other fields.”

“Although setting priorities is essential, it also is critical to maintain a diverse portfolio of activities in particle physics, from theory to accelerator R&D to the construction and support of new experimental facilities. The committee believes that accelerators will remain an essential component of the program,

since some critical scientific questions cannot be explored in any other manner.”

“The field of elementary particle physics is entering an era of unprecedented potential. New experimental facilities, including accelerators, space-based experiments, underground laboratories, and critical precision measurements of various kinds, offer a variety of ways to explore the hidden nature of matter, energy, space, and time. The availability of technologies that can explore directly an energy regime known as the

Terascale is especially exciting.” ……

The results of the committee’s analysis have led to its chief recommendation:

“The United States should remain globally competitive in elementary particle physics by playing a leading role in the worldwide effort to aggressively study Terascale physics.”

4


Office of Science

The Status of HEPThe Status of HEP

HEP is at an extraordinary productive and exciting period with significant discoveries anticipated at the energy frontier and in particle

astrophysics and neutrino science.

The FY 2008 Omnibus Bill funding has resulted in significant loss of HEP scientific productivity and workforce, and; U.S. credibility as an interagency/international partner

Planning is addressing the EPP 2010 priorities: exploration of the Terascale at the LHC; investment in R&D for an international linear collider, and; expansion of the program in astrophysics and internationalization of a staged

program in neutrino physics.

Current circumstances are challenging for the U.S. program: the imminent closing of U.S. HEP facilities; the recognition that the earliest possible start for the ILC will be in the middle of the

next decade, and; the budget uncertainties for HEP (all of Science).

5


Office of Science

DOE Office of High Energy Physics (HEP)

DOE HEP supports: Operations of User Facilities (Tevatron, NuMi, B-Factory) Fabrication and operations of experiments Researchers and students (6 National Laboratories and >100 universities) R&D for next generation accelerators and instrumentation

DOE HEP ProgramAccelerator-based physics • Proton based: Fermilab Tevatron (energy frontier) – planned to end operations in FY 2009

-- Currently reviewing possibility of running in FY 2010 Future: CERN LHC (energy frontier) – to start in FY 2009 Fermilab NuMi (neutrino studies)

Electron based: SLAC B-Factory (test of standard model) – terminates in FY 2008

Non-accelerator physics Atmospheric, solar, reactor neutrinos (SuperK, KamLAND, SNO, Daya Bay, etc.) Particle Astrophysics/Cosmology (GLAST, Auger, VERITAS, SDSS, CDMS-II, AMS, etc.)

Theory Elementary Particle Theory Major Computing efforts: (simulations, data management, etc.)

Technology R&D R&D for accelerator & detector technologies R&D for International Linear Collider (ILC)

6


Office of Science

Today’s Major Tools:U.S. HEP Accelerator Experiments

B-factory at SLACB-factory at SLACNeutrinos @ MINOSNeutrinos @ MINOSTevatron at FermilabTevatron at Fermilab

7


Office of Science

Tomorrow’s Major Toolsat the Energy Frontier

ATLAS@CERNATLAS@CERN

CMS@CERNCMS@CERN

Large Hadron Collider (LHC)@CERNLarge Hadron Collider (LHC)@CERN

8


Office of Science

• Funding for DOE Office Science (SC) increased by 4.6% compared to FY 2007• This included “earmarks” so funding going to peer-review SC program +2.5%• There were winners and losers

• Computing/biological/environmental – increased from request• High energy/nuclear physics/basic energy science – decreased from request• Funding was reduced for the ITER project (fusion energy sciences (FES))• High Energy was only one (except for FES/ITER) that decreased from FY 2007

• Overall DOE SC funding was reduced by $503M (-11%) from FY 2008 President’s Request• Does not support President’s American Competitive Initiative (ACI) - amount• Is at great variance with President’s FY 2009 Request that support ACI - priorities

• DOE SC HEP funding is last few years has fluctuated• FY 2008 funding is a -8.4% (-$63M) reduction from FY 2007• FY 2008 funding is a 12.5% (-93M) reduction from FY 2008 Request• Looking back to FY 2005 – HEP program has lost the operating funds of the B-Factory

• Funding for DOE Office Science (SC) increased by 4.6% compared to FY 2007• This included “earmarks” so funding going to peer-review SC program +2.5%• There were winners and losers

• Computing/biological/environmental – increased from request• High energy/nuclear physics/basic energy science – decreased from request• Funding was reduced for the ITER project (fusion energy sciences (FES))• High Energy was only one (except for FES/ITER) that decreased from FY 2007

• Overall DOE SC funding was reduced by $503M (-11%) from FY 2008 President’s Request• Does not support President’s American Competitive Initiative (ACI) - amount• Is at great variance with President’s FY 2009 Request that support ACI - priorities

• DOE SC HEP funding is last few years has fluctuated• FY 2008 funding is a -8.4% (-$63M) reduction from FY 2007• FY 2008 funding is a 12.5% (-93M) reduction from FY 2008 Request• Looking back to FY 2005 – HEP program has lost the operating funds of the B-Factory

FY 2008 AppropriationsFY 2008 Appropriations

9


Office of Science

Office of ScienceOffice of Science

FY 2008 Appropriation(dollars in thousands)

FY 2008 Enacted Approp. vs.FY 2007 Enacted

Approp.FY 2008 Request

Basic Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1100805 1134557 1250250 1498497 1269902 +19,652 +1.6% -228,595 -15.3%Advanced Scientific Computing Res.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………231649 234684 283415 340198 351173 +67,758 +23.9% +10,975 +3.2%Biological & Environmental Research………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………500503 451131 483495 531897 544397 +60,902 +12.6% +12,500 +2.4%High Energy Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………733622 716694 751786 782238 688317 -63,469 -8.4% -93,921 -12.0%Nuclear Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………403320 367034 422766 471319 432726 +9,960 +2.4% -38,593 -8.2%Fusion Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………272754 287644 318950 427850 286548 -32,402 -10.2% -141,302 -33.0%Science Laboratory Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41902 41684 41986 78956 64861 +22,875 +54.5% -14,095 -17.9%SC Program Direction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………154031 159118 166469 184934 177779 +11,310 +6.8% -7,155 -3.9%Workforce Development………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7571 7120 7952 11000 8044 +92 +1.2% -2,956 -26.9%Safeguards & Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………72773 73630 75830 76592 75946 +116 +0.2% -646 -0.8%SBIR/STTR (SC)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 0 0 0 0 —— —— —— ——

Subtotal, SC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3518930 3473296 3802899 4403481 3899693 +96,794 +2.5% -503,788 -11.4%Approp. versus FY 2006 9.5% 12.3%Request versus FY 2006 26.8%

Congressional Directed Projects**………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………91608 128700 0 0 123623 +123,623 —— +123,623 ——Subtotal, SC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3610538 3601996 3802899 4403481 4023316 +220,417 +5.8% -380,165 -8.6%

Coralville, IA project rescission………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 0 0 0 -44569 -44,569 —— -44,569 ——Security charge to reimbursable cust.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………-5605 -5605 -5605 -5605 -5605 —— —— —— ——General reduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 0 0 0 0 —— —— —— ——Use of prior year balances………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………-5062 0 0 0 0 —— —— —— ——

Total, SC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3599871 3596391 3797294 4397876 3973142 +175,848 +4.6% -424,734 -9.7%

* The enacted appropriation column reflects the original appropriation amount before the SBIR/STTR reprogramming and appropriation transfer and

other approved reprogrammings. It includes enacted rescissions, whether the rescission was part of the original appropriations bill or enacted subsequently

FY 2008 Enacted Approp.*


FY 2008 Request



10


Office of Science

• FY 2008 Omnibus Bill provides $63M less than FY 2007 (-8.5%)• Language specifies:

• no funding for NOvA• ILC R&D and SRF infrastructure funding capped at ~1/4 requested

• Large fraction of this reduction supported people• Fermilab and SLAC (because of ILC/SRF funding) impacted most severely

• Magnitude of reduction and occurring ¼ through the Fiscal Year limited options• One cannot layoff people immediately (takes time and there are severance costs)• Layoffs alone could not meet the bottomline (nor does it make sense)• Needed to look at large non-salary costs (i.e.; facility operations)• But even with significant layoffs – each facilities could run<1/2 planned weeks

• Decision had to be made quickly – delay in layoffs – decreases running weeks

• Came to choice of running the Fermilab or B-Factory

• Operation of the Tevatron in FY 2008 was judged more important• Scientific priority• Preserves options for the future U.S. program

• FY 2008 Omnibus Bill provides $63M less than FY 2007 (-8.5%)• Language specifies:

• no funding for NOvA• ILC R&D and SRF infrastructure funding capped at ~1/4 requested

• Large fraction of this reduction supported people• Fermilab and SLAC (because of ILC/SRF funding) impacted most severely

• Magnitude of reduction and occurring ¼ through the Fiscal Year limited options• One cannot layoff people immediately (takes time and there are severance costs)• Layoffs alone could not meet the bottomline (nor does it make sense)• Needed to look at large non-salary costs (i.e.; facility operations)• But even with significant layoffs – each facilities could run<1/2 planned weeks

• Decision had to be made quickly – delay in layoffs – decreases running weeks

• Came to choice of running the Fermilab or B-Factory

• Operation of the Tevatron in FY 2008 was judged more important• Scientific priority• Preserves options for the future U.S. program

The DOE HEP Budget in FY 2008The DOE HEP Budget in FY 2008

11


Office of Science

The DOE HEP Program in FY 2008

HEP Plan for FY 2008:

• Core Research at approximately FY2007 level of effort

• Tevatron and LHC programs supported

• Projects (except NOvA) go forward on planned profiles

• Other (non-ILC and SRF) technology R&D continues as planned

12


Office of Science

FY 2009 Budget Request

Office of ScienceFY 2009 Budget Request to Congress

(dollars in thousands)

Basic Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,221,380 1,269,902 1,568,160 +298,258 +23.5%Advanced Scientific Computing Research………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………275,734 351,173 368,820 +17,647 +5.0%Biological and Environmental Research………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………480,104 544,397 568,540 +24,143 +4.4%High Energy Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………732,434 689,331 804,960 +115,629 +16.8%Nuclear Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………412,330 432,726 510,080 +77,354 +17.9%Fusion Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………311,664 286,548 493,050 +206,502 +72.1%Science Laboratories Infrastructure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41,986 66,861 110,260 +43,399 +64.9%Science Program Direction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………166,469 177,779 203,913 +26,134 +14.7%Workforce Dev. for Teachers & Scientists………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7,952 8,044 13,583 +5,539 +68.9%Safeguards and Security (gross)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………75,830 75,946 80,603 +4,657 +6.1%SBIR/STTR (SC funding)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………86,936 —— —— —— ——

Subtotal, Office of Science………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,812,819 3,902,707 4,721,969 +819,262 +21.0%Adjustments*………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23,794 70,435 —— -70,435 ——

Total, Office of Science………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,836,613 3,973,142 4,721,969 +748,827 +18.8%

* Adjustments include SBIR/STTR funding transferred from other DOE offices (FY 2007 only), a charge to reimbursable customers for their share of safeguards and security costs (FY 2007 and FY 2008), Congressionally-directed projects and a rescission of a prior year Congressionally-directed project (FY 2008 only), and offsets for the use of prior year balances to fund current year activities (FY 2007 and FY 2008).

FY 2009 Request to Congress

FY 2009 Request to Congress vs. FY 2008

Approp.

FY 2008 Approp.

FY 2007 Approp.

13


Office of Science

DOE HEP Request for FY 2009

President’s Request for FY2009:– HEP Budget is $805.0M– This is an +17% increase from FY2008 appropriation– Puts HEP program back on track of American Competitiveness Initiative that

doubles physical sciences funding over 10 years

There are a number of significant program shifts:– Some are driven by FY2008 reductions

• Reduced and re-focused ILC R&D program• NOvA profile delayed one year

– Others reflect the evolution of HEP strategic plan in the LHC era• B-Factory run completed

– begin ramp-down and D&D. Data analysis will continue for a few years• Tevatron running full-out

– either discovery or significant limits on New Physics in advance of LHC• U.S. researchers in leading roles at LHC• Joint Dark Energy Mission R&D ramping up

– to complete conceptual design and select a mission concept

14


Office of Science

DOE HEP Strategic Plan

A central challenge for the U.S. and international HEP community is defining and executing a robust and balanced scientific program that includes a collider at the energy frontier.

The ILC is widely viewed as that collider, but:

– It is a complex, challenging, multi-billion $ investment

– It requires international commitments

– The ILC physics case and some design parameters will depend on results from the LHC that will probably not be available for at least a few years

Therefore in FY 2009, we propose to:

– Continue support for a U.S. role in the global ILC R&D effort, but focused on areas where the U.S. is the acknowledged leader

– Maintain a balanced scientific program that will preserve options for U.S. leadership in targeted areas, both in the LHC era and whatever comes next

15


Office of Science

DOE HEP Technology R&D Plan

The overall strategy for accelerator technology R&D has both near- and long-term components to provide options for the U.S. program over the next decade:

– Short-term R&D focused on development of a high intensity proton source for an enhanced scientific program in neutrinos and rare decays at Fermilab

– Mid-term R&D directed at developing superconducting RF (SRF) technology and infrastructure, for both the HEP program and wider scientific applications of SRF accelerators

– The focused ILC R&D program (as discussed above)

– Long-term R&D directed at advanced accelerator technologies that hold the promise of transformational change. A new test facility for Advanced Accelerator R&D concepts is included in the FY2009 President’s Request.

16


Office of Science

We are at a pivot point, I believe, in the U.S. not only for HEP, but for DOE SC programs and the physical sciences

• There is support for research and development – but there is a debate about how much should go for short-term, mid-term and long-term (basic) research

• The Administration is strongly supporting long-term basic research• The FY 2009 Budget Request provides funding for doubling funding for physical sciences• SC Budget increases by +21 % (HEP increases by +16.8%)

• There is the expectation that Congress will not pass a funding bill until President leaves• So expectation of a Continuing Resolution (funding at previous year level) for 6 months

• For HEP in the U.S. - it can go in a couple of directions• The US community has to develop a compelling realistic vision for the a U.S. program - then

they need to support it• I believe that this is essential if we are to change the direction of the U.S. program that was

implied in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill.• This will not be possible unless it is part of a coordinated international plan

We are at a pivot point, I believe, in the U.S. not only for HEP, but for DOE SC programs and the physical sciences

• There is support for research and development – but there is a debate about how much should go for short-term, mid-term and long-term (basic) research

• The Administration is strongly supporting long-term basic research• The FY 2009 Budget Request provides funding for doubling funding for physical sciences• SC Budget increases by +21 % (HEP increases by +16.8%)

• There is the expectation that Congress will not pass a funding bill until President leaves• So expectation of a Continuing Resolution (funding at previous year level) for 6 months

• For HEP in the U.S. - it can go in a couple of directions• The US community has to develop a compelling realistic vision for the a U.S. program - then

they need to support it• I believe that this is essential if we are to change the direction of the U.S. program that was

implied in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill.• This will not be possible unless it is part of a coordinated international plan

FY 2009FY 2009

17


Office of Science

Scientific Directions – HEPAP (P5)

To obtain input to develop this plan, DOE and NSF have asked the HEP advisory committee (HEPAP) for prioritized scientific recommendations that are consistent with current budgetary guidance.

HEPAP has been engaged to develop a 10-plan consistent with four budget scenarios:

• Constant effort at the FY 2008 (Omnibus) funding level

• Constant effort at the FY 2007 funding level

• Doubling of funding starting in FY 2007

• Additional funding above the previous level, in priority order, associated with specific activities needed to mount a leadership program that addresses the scientific opportunities identified in the National Academy (“EPP2010”) report.

Preliminary Comments – March 15, 2008Final Report – May, 2008

18


Office of Science

The Plan for HEP

The goal must be a world-class, vigorous, and productive program, which recognizes the internationalization of particle physics, incorporates recent and likely budget realities, and ensures the vitality of the field for the next 10-20 years

A plan for U.S. HEP must be developed that is supported by the scientific community, the Administration, Congress and the public.

The scientific community’s role is critically important: The community, through HEPAP and P5, is developing the science-driven plan. To assist with the realization of this plan, the just released FY2009 Budget Request maintains

future options for HEP. The plan will be used to articulate the case for the FY 2010 Budget Request.

The community needs to make the case of the science and benefits to the nation to Congress and the public.

19


Office of Science

FY 2009 HEP Budget

(Dollars in Thousands) FY 2007 Actual

FY 2008 Appropriation

FY 2009 Request

vs FY 2008

High Energy Physics

Proton Accelerator-Based Physics 343,633 368, 825 419,577 + 14 %

Electron Accelerator-Based Physics 101,284 65,594 48,772 - 25 %

Non-Accelerator Physics 60,655 74,199 86,482 + 17 %

Theoretical Physics 59,955 60,234 63,036 + 5 %

Advanced Technology R&D 186,259a 120,479 187,093 + 0 %

Total, High Energy Physics 751,786a 689,331b 804,960 +17 %

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) Linac Operations (non-add) (51,300) (19,817) (--)

The SLAC linear accelerator (linac) supports operations of the B-factory (funded by HEP) and will also support operations of the Linac Coherent Light Source (currently under construction and funded by Basic Energy Sciences (BES)). With the completion of B-factory operations in FY 2008, SC has been transitioning funding of the SLAC linac from HEP to BES, with FY 2008 representing the third and final year of joint funding with BES. aTotal includes $19,352,000 transferred to SBIR and STTR programs.

b includes an approved reprogramming of prior year balances of $1,014,000

20


Office of Science

FY 2009 HEP Budget Cross-Cut

(Dollars in Thousands) FY 2007 Actual

FY 2008 Appropriation (January AFP)

FY 2009 Request

vs FY 2008

High Energy Physics

Core Research (incl. Accel. Science) 280,768 282,075 294,497 +4 %

Technology R&D (non-ILC) 88,602 50,784 84,476 +66 %

Facility Operations 290,958 283,602 286,115 +1 %

Completed and Planned Projects 13,550 17,440 66,700 +382 %

R&D Initiatives (ILC, JDEM) 48,082 24,431 45,030 +84 %

Infrastructure 10,474 12,532 7,754 - 38 %

SBIR/STTR 19,352a 17,653 20,388 + 15 %

Total, High Energy Physics 751,786a 689,331b 804,960 + 17 %

aTotal includes $19,352,000 transferred to SBIR and STTR programs.

b includes an approved reprogramming of prior year balances of $1,014,000

21


Office of Science

Total Project

Cost (TPC)

Total Estimate

d Cost (TEC)

Prior Year

Appro-priation

sFY

2007FY

2008FY

2009Completio

n Date

Large Hadron Collider–CMS Detector, CERN 147,050 71,789 70,539 1,250 — — FY 2007

NuMI Off-axis Neutrino Appearance (NOvA) Detector, Fermilab 270,000 TBD — 500 — 7,000 FY 2014

Main Injector Experiment v-A (MINERvA), Fermilab 16,800 10,700 — — 5,000 4,900 FY 2010

Reactor Neutrino Detector, Daya Bay, China

32,000 - 34,000 TBD — 500 3,960

13,000 FY 2012

Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K) Near Detector, Tokai, Japan 4,680 2,980 — — 1,980 1,000 FY 2009

Cryogenic Dark Matter Survey, 25kg Detector, SNOLab, Canada

5,000-7,000 TBD — — — 500 FY 2012

Dark Energy Survey, Cerro-Tololo Inter-American Observatory, Chile

24,100 - 26,700 TBD — — 3,610 7,500 FY 2011

Advanced Accelerator R&D Test Facility, TBD

15,000-19,000 TBD — — — 8,000 FY 2013

Current MIE Projects

(EQU costs ONLY; Dollars in Thousands) N

eutr

inos

Par

ticl

e-A

stro

Acc

el

NOTE: Except for CMS, MINERvA, and T2K, all TPCs are preliminary estimates (projects have not yet been baselined)

22


Office of Science

Dark Matter Searches

Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS-II)

• Direct detection of dark matter with ultracold Ge in Soudan Mine in Minnesota

• Data-taking: Full ops with 5 towers (~5kg active mass) started in 2006 & continuing in 2008.

• New results on exclusion limits on dark matter cross section will be out soon.

Axion Dark Matter Search (ADMX) experiment at Lawrence Livermore Lab in CA Data taking planned in 2008

CDMS-25kg upgrade R&D in FY2008; fabrication starts in FY2009 Deploy in SNOLab by 2012

Evaluating technologies for future as recommended by

DMSAG

.

CDMS detector

23


Office of Science

Dark Energy

ExperimentsOperating experiments (Stage II): Supernova Cosmology Project, Nearby Supernova Factory, SDSS-II

Providing R&D funds for large-scale experiments (Stage IV): Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)

• Collaboration proposing that DOE fund the camera construction, led by SLAC JDEM – next generation space-based experiment

• Continue R&D for SNAP concept, led by LBNL• FY07 R&D funding for DESTINY and ADEPT

Grants ProgramIn 2007, DOE/HEP supported R&D in key areas identified by the “Dark Energy Task Force report” Received 32 Dark Energy R&D proposals

• Partially funded 21 – projects include theory, ground and space ($3M total)

In 2008, DOE/HEP again plans to provide “generic” dark energy support Deadline for proposals was 12/18/07

• Received 70 proposals requesting ~ $15.2M involving 198 researchers

24


Office of Science

Dark Energy - JDEM

Both BEPAC and the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill gave guidance that DOE and NASA should work together on JDEM.

DOE, NASA and OSTP have been meeting regularly to lay out the plan for a mission

Our target is:

• Announcement of Opportunity in 2008

• Selection in 2009

• Launch in the middle of the next decade

25


Office of Science

Dark Energy Survey (DES)

DES is a Stage III experiment that will provide multiple methods to study dark energy

DOE is fabricating the DECam camera to be installed on the Blanco 4m telescope in Chile

Collaboration with NSF, UK, Spain, Brazil

Joint DOE/NSF review held January 2008: DECam ready for baselining.

Long-lead procurements beginning in 2008; operations in 2012.

DECam Camera

26


Office of Science

Gamma-ray Astrophysics - Space

Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) High-energy (~20-200 GeV) gamma rays using

HEP detector technology Collaboration on the primary instrument, the Large

Area Telescope (LAT), between NASA, DOE, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden

Jan 2006 – LAT instrument fabrication complete Currently undergoing final environmental testing at

NRL & will ship to Kennedy Space Center in March

Renaming contest on the www

May 16, 2008 - GLAST launch scheduled

LAT Detector during assembly

27


Office of Science

Cosmic Ray Astrophysics

Pierre Auger Observatory – Argentina

Scientific goal is to observe, understand and characterize the very highest energy cosmic rays.

Collaboration with NSF and 17 other countries Installed over 3000 km2 site

• All fluorescence telescopes are operating

• 1570 (out of 1600) surface Cherenkov detectors deployed

Collaboration is working on R&D for Auger-South upgrades & an Auger-North design report

Nov. 2007 results:

Sources of highest energy cosmic rays are most likely active galactic nuclei !

Fluorescence telescope

28


Office of Science

Future Prospects

Proposals for next-generation tools are starting to come in, or are expected soon:

AGIS

Auger North

HAWC

BOSS/SDSS-III

+ more

An important part of DOE/HEP P5 process and evaluation will be asking how various proposals and directions impact our mission:

“understand how our universe works at its most fundamental level”

doe office of high energy physics report to the astronomy and astrophysics advisory committee

Documents