FY

1
FY06 Budget Implications for Fermilab and MINERnA

• From presentations by Steve Holmes and Mike
  Witherell

2
Presidents FY2006 Budget RequestSome 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, RD 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, RD for other
  new accelerator and detector technologies,
  particularly in the emerging area of neutrino
  physics, will also increase.

3
It hits 0 in 2030..
4
Office of ScienceFY 2006 Congressional Budget
Request

• 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

(M)
FY 2004 Comparable Approp. FY 2005 Comparable Approp. FY 2006 Presidents Request FY 2006 Request vs FY 2005 Appropriation FY 2006 Request vs FY 2005 Appropriation
Basic Energy Sciences 991 1,105 1,146 41 3.7
Advanced Scientific Computing Res. 197 232 207 -25 -10.9
Biological Environmental Research 624 582 456 -126 -21.7
High Energy Physics 716 736 714 -23 -3.1
Nuclear Physics 380 405 371 -34 -8.4
Fusion Energy Sciences 256 274 291 17 6.1
Other 384 270 279 8 3.1
Total, Science 3,548 3,605 3,463 -142 -3.9
5
Planning for the Future

• The current U.S. accelerator-based program is
  world-leading, but finite in lifetime
• 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,
• 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 2007-10
• Scientific opportunities are compelling
• neutrino physics (APS study) dark matter, dark
  energy
• Resources will become available, through
  redirection

6
New Initiatives

• In order to inform the Department of HEPs 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.

7
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/HEPs
  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)

8
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 laboratorys 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.

9
Ramifications

• Fortunately the alternative directions put forth
  in the Presidents Budget Request align extremely
  well with the vision established in the Fermilab
  Long Range Plan (http//www.fnal.gov/directorate/L
  ongrange/Long_range_planning.html)
• 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
• We will begin immediately redirecting(BTeV)
  resources into Proton Plan, Proton Driver, and
  Linear Collider. Current working model is (MS
  SWF)

10
Ramifications

• Short Term Actions (cont).
• The second meeting of the Proton Driver
  Scientific Advisory Committee is scheduled for
  February 24.
• We have a Directors Review of the Proton Driver
  technical design scheduled for March 15-17.
• 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?...

11
DOE 413.3Project Management for the Acquisition
of Capital Assets
12
Summary

• We have a future
• Its just going to get here a little sooner than
  we had anticipated.

13
BTeV cancelled - effect on MINERnA

• Fermilab available support for other tasks
  increases
• Fermilab available for other projects - within
  ms of BTeV announcement redirected to RD 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 afternoons session.

14
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
• Emails 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 -
  MINERnA now in the mix.
• Tread carefully selling MINERnA as a DIS
  experiment. Ive 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 DIS05 in Madison,
  late April. Invitation for a MINERnA
  presentation.