View from the NSF: Later Years

1
View from the NSF Later Years
LEPP CLEO CESR Symposium at Cornell, May 31,
2008

• J. Whitmore (EPP-PNA)
• M. Pripstein (LHC)
• M. Goldberg, J. Reidy (EPP)

2
Topics

• After Dave B.
• Charm-Tau
• ERL
• Whats next?

3
After D. Berley..

• To follow on where Dave left
• After the B-factory came on line in Oct. 1999,
• CESR-CLEO made very important contributions
  
• to Tau-Charm physics (more later)
• A few years ago (2004?), with the conclusion of
  its 20-year program of studies of the decays and
  spectroscopy of the bottom quark, the CLEO
  Collaboration turned its attention to the study
  of charm and charmonium. The National Science
  Foundation supported converting the Cornell
  Electron Storage Ring to CESR-c, including
  installing wiggler magnets to enhance luminosity
  in the charm threshold region
• It is remarkable that more than 30 years after
  the first discovery, charmonium continues to
  yield new information and new challenges to
  elementary-particle physics, thanks to
  improvements in collider luminosities and
  detector capabilities. (CERN Courier June 2006)

4
2002 Review - I

• Report on the Site Visit to Wilson Laboratory for
• Elementary Particle Physics at Cornell University
• March 5-6, 2002

• Executive Summary
• The panel judges that
• The proposed research program is of the highest
  quality and is expected to lead to significant
  advances in our understanding of weak
  interactions and lattice QCD
• The proposed upgrades to existing facilities
  are feasible, limited in scope and cost, and the
  schedule is well understood. In fact, the
  existing facilities are state-ofthe-art and
  extremely well suited to execute the proposed
  program in the five-year time frame.
• The expertise in superconducting RF technology,
  the operation of storage rings, and the current
  effort to build and operate wiggler magnets are
  examples of the activities needed for the
  development of future accelerators, such as the
  Linear Collider. The Cornell group is expected to
  become a major intellectual player in the
  planning, construction, and operation of this
  very large international facility.
• The LEPP has an excellent record in training
  particle and accelerator physicists. The proposed
  masters degree program in accelerator physics
  would be a great addition.

5
2002 Review - II

• Report on the Site Visit to
• Wilson Laboratory, Cornell University
• Review of the Energy Recovery Linac (ERL)
  Proposal
• March 7-8, 2002

Executive Summary The committee strongly
encourages NSF to support the ERL Phase I
program. We believe that this proposal is forward
looking and directed to the need for new and
enabling technology that brings the possibility
of fundamentally different parameters to next
generation light sources.
6
Oversight-Reviews

• We do lots of oversight!

7
2006 Review
Report of the Site Review of the Cornell
Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics April
17-18, 2006

• We were impressed by both the quality and
  quantity of the
  physics output of the CLEO-c program and we
  strongly endorse the
  proposal to continue running until March 31,
  2008.
• The SRF work at Cornell has a tremendous
  potential leverage on the cost of the ILC
  accelerating cavities, as well as on enabling
  technologies that would minimize the project
  risks. The CesrTF has some unique advantages as a
  test facility for ILC storage rings
• LEPP has an outstanding record of contributions
  to accelerator physics and technology and
  training expert accelerator scientists and
  engineers. The laboratory represents a national
  resource for accelerator science and technology.
  SRF cavity RD at LEPP directly benefits the ILC
  project.
• The Cornell Laboratory for Elementary Particle
  Physics has an excellent record of developing
  programs of education and enrichment for students
  in K-12.

8
Changes
9
2007 Review

• NSF/DOE Review of the Cesr Conversion Proposal
• (July 2007)
• Executive Summary
• The Panel believes that the RD described in the
  CesrTA Proposal is important to mitigate risk in
  the ILC positron damping ring design and should
  be carried out.
• The Panel feels that Cornells proposal is the
  only one consistent with gaining the necessary
  information on a timescale compatible with the
  ILC schedule for production of an Engineering
  Design Report (EDR) in 2010. CesrTA also appears
  to be the most cost-effective option available to
  obtain the required data.

The Cornell groups scientific and technical
knowledge is well known, and their record of
achievement in accelerator physics is
outstanding. We believe they will achieve the
main goals of the CesrTA project, thus making
important contributions to the development of the
ILC, and to the understanding of how the e-cloud
and other effects limit positron storage ring
performance.
10
Conclusions

• We would like to acknowledge the role of our
  partners at DOE in
• Supporting many groups active in CLEO
• Co-funding the future accelerator activities now
  underway here at Cornell
• In Conclusion
• Congratulations from NSF to the entire CLEO
  collaboration on your past achievements
• We are looking forward to your next
  accomplishments