/
Report From NSAC 2012 Committee Report From NSAC 2012 Committee

Report From NSAC 2012 Committee - PowerPoint Presentation

triclin
triclin . @triclin
Follow
342 views
Uploaded On 2020-06-15

Report From NSAC 2012 Committee - PPT Presentation

Robert Atcher Peter Jacobs Jamie Nagle LANL LBNL Colorado Jeffrey Binder David Kaplan Kenneth Nash ACS ORNL Washington Washington State Jeffery Blackmon Joshua Klein Allena ID: 777688

report march science nsac march report nsac science budget nuclear facilities frib construction office plan absolutely choice request president

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download The PPT/PDF document "Report From NSAC 2012 Committee" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Report From NSAC2012 Committee

Robert Atcher Peter Jacobs Jamie NagleLANL LBNL ColoradoJeffrey Binder David Kaplan Kenneth Nash (ACS)ORNL Washington Washington StateJeffery Blackmon Joshua Klein Allena OpperLouisiana State Pennsylvania George WashingtonGail Dodge Karlheinz Langanke Jorge PiekarewiczOld Dominion GSI Florida StateAlexandra Gade Zheng-tian Lu Julia VelkovskaMichigan State ANL VanderbiltSusan Gardner Robert McKeown Rajugopal VenugopalinKentucky Jefferson Lab BNLDonald Geesaman (Chair) Curtis MeyerANL Carnegie Mellon

1

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide2

The 2013 President’s Budget Request brings challenges

2NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide3

FY12 NP down 3.5% from FY11 and NSCL held flat

FY13 expect about flat3NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide4

FY12 President’s Request

FY11 President’s Request

In as spent dollars assuming 4% inflation. Actual inflation ~2-3%. In fact through 2012 the summed ONP budget in constant effort dollars from 2007-2012 is very close to ONP budget.

4

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide5

Budget History

President’s request matches Long Range Plan scenarioCongress appropriates less money in FY11 and FY12FY13 budget request $20.5M less than FY12 appropriationCurrent FY13 budget is temporary continuing resolution which runs out in end of MarchSequestration, designed as a poison pill to resolve a budget impasse, leads to new reduction - nominally in the press ~5% across the board.5NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide6

Office of Science FY 2013 Budget in the House Bill

6$523.2M compared to $526.9MNSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide7

7

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide8

8

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide9

9

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide10

10

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide11

11

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide12

12

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide13

13

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide14

14

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide15

15

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide16

16

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide17

17

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide18

18

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide19

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

19Budget Options IIModest Growth BudgetCan run CEBAF and RHIC at reduced levels and continue to build FRIBResearch budgets remain tightRather small amount of funding for new initiatives to FY17The subcommittee was unanimous in endorsing the modest growth budget scenario as the minimum level of support that is needed to maintain a viable long-term U.S. nuclear science program that encompasses the vision of the Long Range Plan.

Slide20

20

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide21

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

21No Growth BudgetsIf a decision were made to force the U.S. nuclear science community to downsize through budgets that provide no growth over the next four years, a choice would have to be made that would fundamentally change the direction of what remained of the field.Because of the superb science lost in either shutting down RHIC or terminating construction on FRIB, the committee was not able to make a choice based on scientific merit alone. Based on additional considerations of timing of the budget crisis relative to the status of the ongoing construction initiative, the subcommittee vote, while closely split, resulted in a slight preference for the choice that proceeds with FRIB. This choice secures the significant non-ONP contributions that are critical to the cost-effective construction of FRIB, ensures a leading position for the U.S. in the central area of nuclear structure and nuclear astrophysics based on FRIB's unprecedented science capabilities. This slight preference arises in the context of facility timelines and the approximate profile for FRIB construction, presented to the subcommittee as a snapshot of the field. If this budget exercise had occurred in a near future year, this snapshot would have changed, and the choice

might well have been different.

Slide22

22

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide23

Feedback from the Report has been positive

Clearly laid out the impacts of cutsProvided an answer if tough budgets do come to passAt March 8, 2013 NSAC meeting, Director of the Office of Science stated, “We are trying to keep all 3 things [CEBAF-12 GeV, FRIB, RHIC]” “I share the view that I don’t think shutting down the RHIC facility at this time is the right thing to do. “23NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide24

Office of Science Facilities Plan

OMB and Congress have requested that DOE Office of Science lay out a plan for new construction over the next ten years. Each of the Office of Science Advisory Committees was asked to grade existing user facilities and new initiatives with cost >$100MInitial list of facilities prepared by the Office of Nuclear PhysicsNSAC could add or subtract facilities from the list.Facilities were not to be ranked24NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Slide25

The Facilities Plan

Facility Science ReadinessExisting User Facilities ATLAS absolutely centralCEBAF absolutely  centralRHIC absolutely centralNew Facilities EIC absolutely scientific/technical   central challengesFRIB absolutely ready for construction   centralTon scale Neutrino-less absolutely scientific/technicalDouble Beta Decay central challenges

25

NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Note each has upgrades underway

Slide26

Conclusion (from Tim Hallman’s 8 March Presentation)

Leadership in discovery science illuminating the properties of nuclear matter in all of its manifestations.Tools

necessary for scientific and technical advances which will lead to new knowledge, new competencies, and groundbreaking innovation and applications.

S

trategic

investments in tools

and research to provide the U.S. with premier research

capabilities

in the world.

The United States continues to provide resources for and to expect:

The future of nuclear science in the United States may not be exactly as envisioned in the 2007 Long Range Plan, but it remains rich with science opportunities.

Nuclear Science will continue to be an important part of the U.S. science investment strategy to create new knowledge and technology innovation supporting U.S. security and competitiveness

26