Blacksburg Workshop

1
Blacksburg Workshop
Bernard Sadoulet Dept. of Physics /LBNL UC
Berkeley UC Institute for Nuclear and
Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (INPAC)

• DUSEL process
• Solicitation 1
• Workshops Berkeley, Blacksburg, Boulder,
  Maryland(?)
• Goals
• Style

2
DUSEL Process

• Solicitation 1 Community wide study of
• Scientific roadmap from Nuclear/Particle/Astro
  Physics to Geo Physics/Chemistry/Microbiology/Engi
  neering
• Generic infrastructure requirements
• Proposal supported by all 8 known sites
  submitted on Sept 15,2004 (www.dusel.org)
• Under review by NSF
• Solicitation 2 Preselection of 3-5 sites
• Proposals due January 10.
• Solicitation 3
• Selection of initial site(s)
• MRE and Presidential Budget (hope 08 start)

3
Solicitation 1 Organization

• 6 PIs responsible for the study
• in particular scientific quality/ objectivity
• 14 working groups Workshops
• Infrastructure requirements/management
• Education and outreach
• 2 consultation groups
• The site consultation group (Solicitation 2
  sites)
• Endorsement of the PIs and general approach
• Input on scientific/technical questions important
  to the sites
• Competition between sites
• The initiative coordination group major
  stakeholders (e.g. National Labs)
• Coordination with other major initiatives
• Competition between these initiatives
• Report directed at OMB/OSTP/Congress
• cf. Quantum Universe
• Web based reports with technical facts
• External review à la NRC

4
Workshops

• Berkeley Aug 4-7
• Agree about methodology and finalize Solicitation
  1 proposal
• First exploration of scientific themes
• Start of work on infrastructure requirements
• Common language for solicitation 2
• Blacksburg Nov 12-13
• Focus on Earth Sciences (including
  Geo-microbiology) and Applications
• More precise definition of scientific roadmaps
  and generic experiments
• Generic infrastructure requirements Adaptation
  of methodology
• Help in integration into solicitation 2 proposals
  
• Boulder Jan 5-7
• Bring in mainstream biologists (e.g.
  evolutionary molecular and microbe)
• Synergies between fields
• Focus on infrastructure requirements lt results
  of working groups Modules
• Sketch of report major themes
• Last opportunity to adjust our common language
  before Solicitation 2
• Washington Area March or April
• Conclusions
• First draft of report

5
Berkeley Workshop Physics/Earth Science

• Clearly something is happening
• Partnership
• Not only to boost political case
• Money saving/new opportunities from co-location
• e.g. Deep module as platform
• Instrumentation of the site before
  construction and monitoring after
• biological precautions
• Synergies
• Technology MEMS, Data acquisition
• Large caverns
• Novel scientific methods
• use of particle methods for earth exploration
  (neutrinos, low radioactivity counting)
• use of geophysics methods for particle
  detection?
• Different styles
• novel approaches
• more effective argumentation with agencies
• Intellectual climate at site(s)
• Multidisciplinarygt intellectual creativity
• education of our students

6
Berkeley WorkshopThe Big Scientific Question

• Illuminating the dark side of the earth and the
  cosmos
• Nature of dark matter and dark energy
• The neutrino properties
• Matter/antimatter asymmetry and stability of
  matter
• Ancient life/evolution/adaptation
• Understanding the earth and its evolution /rock
  deformation/ earthquakes
• Imaging the underground world gt mastery of the
  rock

7
Berkeley WorkshopA Powerful Case for DUSEL

• Unique aspects
• Earth Science Deep, long term is unique
• Physics Depth ?
• Long base line accelerators
• Likely demand and evolution of science
• We have to build the case
• Road maps Infrastructure requirements
• Strategic importance
• as large scale experiments become international
  , important to have US site to have US teams
  leading the projects
• We want the U.S. to be a leader in geoscience
  techniques
• Energy sciences (finding oil deposit, etc.)
• Underground construction
• Education of our scientists and engineers
• Homeland security
• International context and partnerships
• SNO
• Japan/Europe

8
BlacksburgScientific Roadmapsfor Deep
Underground Earth Science

• Starting from previous studies (in particular
  Ness2002,Earth Lab report, Berkeley workshop) go
  further
• Identification of major themes
• With syntheses which make sense for the
  specialists, resonate with other scientists and
  fascinates the non scientists
• Relatively few working groups Coupled processes,
  rock mechanics and tectonics, geo-microbiology
  and applications
• Prioritization
• What are the most pressing questions to answer
  deep underground?
• Can we identify major types of experiments or
  facilities
• Not necessarily same approach as physicists
• But go further than the 1km3 sand box where we
  want to play for at least 10 years
• e.g. Earth Lab
• Ultradeep Life and Biogeochemistry Observatory
  
• Deep Flow and Paleoclimate Laboratory and
  Observatory
• Induced Fracture and Deformation Processes
  Laboratory Deep Coupled Processes Laboratory

9
Blacksburg Infrastructure Requirements

• Earth science is not geology independent
• Not everything can be done at every site
• What are the generic site characteristics which
  are necessary to at least start to tackle the
  most important questions
• cf Depth as a major characteristic for physicists
  (but not needed for all)
• Do we have enough of a scientific case for
  recommending eventually a combination of sites?
• Adapt infrastructure requirement matrix to Deep
  Earth Science (Lee Petersen, Derek Ellsworth)
• At minimum, additional columns indicating rock
  type, fracture characteristics etc.
• Define also needed characterization / monitoring
  of the site precautions for biological studies
• Estimate of the demand in an international
  context

10
Berkeley Workshop Physics/Earth Science

• Clarity about differences
• Earth scientists heterogeneous fragmented
• Physicists homogeneous gt large cavities
• Earth scientists more sites
• Physicists single organization
• Earth scientists virgin territory
• Some physicists use of existing sites
• to reduce costs

11
Style

• Solicitation 1 process
• Study cutting across sites Site independent
  (obviously not geology independent)
• Program under PIs responsibility
• Visit of Kimballton is not an official part of
  the workshop
• Stress our unity
• A big success at Berkeley
• In spite of the competition between sites (and
  natural tendency to push competitive advantage of
  our favorite site)
• No product placement, propaganda
• No bias of the scientific arguments for political
  purpose
• Education and outreach should never be very far
  in the background