13:25:53 13:25:53 >> 13:25:55 OK, welcome back. 13:26:08 So we will continue this morning session 13:26:10 . 13:26:11 My name is 13:26:15 Yuri and I will chair the next four talks 13:26:17 . 13:26:21 I'm going to start is often the fields of 13:26:24 astrophysics and nuclear physics here 13:26:25 . 13:26:31 Oh present this from the vending agencies. 13:26:33 As with the previous session, let's keep 13:26:35 argument a questions till the end. 13:26:41 First, I'm happy to present Professor Fiona 13:26:43 Harrison from 13:26:45 (unknown term) Tech. 13:26:46 She will tell us about the astrophysics 13:26:48 , 13:26:49 blending in particular the... 13:26:51 sorry. 13:26:52 (inaudible). 13:26:53 13:26:53 >> 13:26:55 OK, thank you. 13:26:56 So I'm going 13:26:58 to show 13:26:59 a few 13:27:03 (inaudible). 13:27:03 Which I think I should be 13:27:05 ... 13:27:17 OK 13:27:20 , alright. 13:27:21 So is not visible? 13:27:29 -- Is that visible? 13:27:31 Hello? 13:27:31 >> Yes, perfect. 13:27:32 >> You can hear me, great. 13:27:34 Let me first say that currently 13:27:36 , there is very little 13:27:37 to nothing 13:27:38 I can say about our deliberations 13:27:40 . 13:27:44 The surveys across all fields in which they are 13:27:47 undertaken by the National academies 13:27:48 as charged 13:27:49 by agencies 13:27:52 go through a community input phase 13:27:54 and then 13:27:55 the panels 13:27:57 do their deliberations 13:28:00 and make decisions 13:28:02 on priorities 13:28:06 . 13:28:06 And while that's ongoing, 13:28:08 those deliberations 13:28:11 are of course entirely confidential. 13:28:13 So I can't answer any questions 13:28:20 about what's currently being considered. 13:28:21 But I can give you an overview 13:28:23 . 13:28:24 Imagining 13:28:24 that there's probably some students 13:28:33 and people not familiar with 13:28:35 Decadel 13:28:39 surveys. 13:28:39 I will start with a high level description of 13:28:42 what a Decadel 13:28:43 survey is. 13:28:44 NASA 13:28:48 , NSF and DOE undertake these surveys. 13:28:50 They are led by community members 13:28:52 who analyse and prioritize the science 13:28:54 questions for the next decade 13:28:55 . 13:28:55 And then 13:28:56 power ties 13:28:58 recommendations 13:29:00 for investment in research facilities 13:29:08 -- prioritize recommendations for 13:29:09 investment in research facilities. 13:29:11 For our department, Aster physics, 13:29:13 this includes development for our 13:29:15 space-based facilities and ground-based 13:29:16 activities. 13:29:20 The surveys are currently required by 13:29:22 Congress 13:29:22 and must include an evaluation 13:29:24 of the project risks 13:29:25 and budgets 13:29:27 for major missions 13:29:30 and facilities. 13:29:33 13:29:33 >> So, our survey 13:29:35 , Astro 2020 13:29:38 , includes a scope 13:29:40 that was decided 13:29:42 in consultation 13:29:43 between 13:29:44 the National academies 13:29:45 and 13:29:47 an advisory committee 13:29:50 with the agencies 13:29:53 , and in this case, the primary agencies 13:29:56 are NASA 13:29:56 , NSF 13:29:57 and DOE. 13:29:59 And what was decided 13:30:01 for the scope 13:30:03 was to cover 13:30:08 ground-based and space-based observations 13:30:09 through 13:30:11 (inaudible) and 13:30:12 lab physics. 13:30:14 In addition 13:30:17 , space-based solar physics and astrophysics 13:30:24 is covered through different survey. 13:30:25 Interesting probably for your group 13:30:27 is 13:30:27 the NSF in particular 13:30:29 really wanted to hear 13:30:34 what the astrophysics community 13:30:37 thought of facilities 13:30:38 that traditionally might be 13:30:39 thought of 13:30:41 as physics facilities 13:30:42 but that have 13:30:43 strong relevance 13:30:47 for astronomy and astrophysics. 13:30:49 This includes gravitational wave 13:30:50 observations 13:30:52 , technology development 13:30:53 for 13:30:55 future gravitational wave experiments 13:30:56 , 13:30:59 multi-messenger astronomy and 13:31:00 astrophysics. 13:31:00 So this would include 13:31:02 high-energy neutrinos 13:31:03 . 13:31:04 And then what you would 13:31:06 imagine 13:31:07 as more traditional astronomy 13:31:10 and astrophysics including excellent 13:31:12 planets at 13:31:12 the intersection 13:31:19 of planetary science and astrobiology. 13:31:30 Excluded is direct dark matter detection, 13:31:31 microgravity research, fundamental physics, so 13:31:33 B things like LHC 13:31:34 even though there may be relevance 13:31:47 consideration as part of this survey. 13:31:51 These part of the surveys are really 13:31:53 driven by community input 13:31:56 . 13:31:59 There was a period where white papers were 13:32:02 solicited for science determine what 13:32:07 the science opportunities are. 13:32:08 Tremendous community involvement, 573 13:32:10 submissions. 13:32:10 Every single one of the papers 13:32:12 was read. 13:32:12 There really is 13:32:17 some very interesting ideas 13:32:21 . 13:32:22 And then, activity 13:32:23 and project 13:32:25 and state of the profession consideration 13:32:31 , also very large interest. 13:32:32 294 of those 13:32:33 . 13:32:34 250 addressed 13:32:36 projects and activities 13:32:39 for the survey to consider 13:32:43 and another 70 addressed issues 13:32:45 of the state of profession 13:32:48 and social title 13:32:51 -- societal benefits. 13:32:56 These are all public and you can find them on 13:32:59 the website, looking under community input. 13:33:01 So the structure of the survey 13:33:02 , there's a steering committee of 20 members 13:33:05 that has been planning the overall process. 13:33:11 Science panels, there are six science panels. 13:33:13 These of all completed their works 13:33:15 and submitted 13:33:16 reports 13:33:17 to the steering committee 13:33:19 . 13:33:20 Program panels 13:33:21 that are divided up 13:33:23 into subject matter areas 13:33:24 , for example 13:33:27 electromagnetic observations from space 13:33:30 in different 13:33:32 wave bands 13:33:33 , 13:33:35 article astrophysics and gravitation 13:33:38 , radio 13:33:40 , optical infared 13:33:41 from the ground 13:33:43 . 13:33:43 These panels 13:33:44 all consider the projects 13:33:47 that were put forth 13:33:48 by the community 13:33:51 . 13:33:52 And importantly, 13:33:53 do a technical 13:33:55 readiness risk and cost assessment 13:33:57 which is part 13:33:59 of forwarding recommendations 13:34:01 for consideration 13:34:03 to the steering committee. 13:34:06 As of the panels have no now completed their 13:34:09 work and 13:34:11 where we are 13:34:12 as the steering committee 13:34:19 is now synthesizing and writing a report. 13:34:23 I will show you at the end where we are on the 13:34:27 schedule. 13:34:29 Interestingly, for the first time in this 13:34:31 survey, I personally feel this is 13:34:33 a big step forward for our community. 13:34:35 The agencies asked the survey consider 13:34:37 the state of the profession 13:34:39 , review the health and demographics 13:34:42 of astronomy and astrophysics 13:34:44 and come up with 13:34:46 actionable 13:34:48 recommendations 13:34:50 for how we can do better 13:34:53 in terms 13:34:54 of making 13:34:58 our community and our research 13:34:59 inclusive 13:35:01 , removing barriers 13:35:03 to entry and also 13:35:04 considering 13:35:06 the advancement 13:35:10 of early career scientists. 13:35:13 So, 13:35:15 I've already mentioned the state of the 13:35:17 profession. 13:35:19 In addition, we had a panel this time 13:35:22 that really 13:35:24 recognizing the importance 13:35:27 of things like computation and 13:35:28 simulations 13:35:31 . 13:35:32 We are entering an era of big data 13:35:34 and you can already 13:35:35 -- 13:35:37 you can argue we've already entered this era 13:35:40 in astronomy and astrophysics with the 13:35:42 Rubin telescope, the Deaconess 13:35:43 solar 13:35:45 online 13:35:47 , or soon to be online 13:35:51 , producing vast quantities of data 13:35:56 . 13:35:56 And in addition, 13:35:59 there are things like laboratory astrophysics 13:36:01 that crosscut 13:36:03 all areas of science. 13:36:05 So there was a dedicated panel 13:36:07 to consider these activities. 13:36:11 So, 13:36:12 I thought he would tell you 13:36:14 what the agencies told us 13:36:18 at a very high level. 13:36:22 So the agencies briefed us at the beginning of 13:36:25 the survey 13:36:27 and again, 13:36:28 updated their advice 13:36:31 as recently 13:36:34 as late August 2020 13:36:35 , post covert 13:36:38 -- COVID-19 13:36:39 to read is no 13:36:40 if any of 13:36:43 us back to let us know if any of that advice 13:36:46 had changed. 13:36:57 It's higher-level advice was to let us 13:36:59 know the survey had to be ambitious. 13:37:01 Here you want to 13:37:02 emphasize that we are considering projects 13:37:06 in AST, 13:37:08 but also 13:37:10 at the request 13:37:11 of the agencies 13:37:17 and those that are in physics that have 13:37:20 relevance for astronomy and astrophysics 13:37:21 and the directions 13:37:22 from NSF 13:37:23 is that the survey will be most effective 13:37:26 in its aspirational, inspirational 13:37:27 and transformative 13:37:30 . 13:37:32 From DOE 13:37:35 , so DOE would like advice from the survey 13:37:38 to inform HHE P 13:37:39 on 13:37:40 high-impact opportunities 13:37:40 that 13:37:42 align with DOE's science priorities 13:37:44 that make use 13:37:45 of 13:37:45 the 13:37:49 ATP communities capabilities. 13:37:50 These are all updated as of late August 13:37:54 . 13:37:55 The agencies still want us to be aggressive 13:37:57 and ambitious. 13:38:00 So here's the timeline 13:38:01 . 13:38:04 I think this was my last slide with content 13:38:06 . 13:38:08 COVID-19, we had initially 13:38:09 been intending 13:38:16 to release a report in January 2021. 13:38:18 That was pre-COVID-19. 13:38:19 That was a schedule we had no gauges 13:38:21 -- 13:38:24 negotiated with agencies. 13:38:25 Of course COVID-19 had a big impact. 13:38:29 Several of the final meetings 13:38:30 for program panels have to go 13:38:32 virtual. 13:38:33 All the steering committees 13:38:36 meetings since March have been virtual 13:38:39 and of course that slows things down 13:38:42 , in addition to our community members 13:38:44 struggling with homeschooling 13:38:47 and all the other challenges 13:38:49 of COVID-19. 13:38:53 We are still however aiming 13:38:57 to release the survey 13:38:58 in spring 13:38:59 of 2021 13:39:00 . 13:39:03 It's important in particular to the NSF 13:39:05 to know what the recommendations are 13:39:07 for their budget cycle planning 13:39:09 . 13:39:10 So 13:39:11 , we are working very hard 13:39:13 to meet that 13:39:15 , 13:39:17 as you all know is a challenge 13:39:20 to make progress 13:39:22 under the current conditions. 13:39:27 But I think I will leave it there. 13:39:30 That's my overview 13:39:31 and I thought 13:39:32 we could spend a few minutes 13:39:37 on questions 13:39:40 with the notes that of course, 13:39:42 I can't say anything about where we are 13:39:44 in deliberating 13:39:46 on particular projects. 13:39:55 13:39:55 >> Thank you very much Fiona. 13:39:59 That was a very informative talk 13:40:01 . 13:40:02 We do have maybe a couple of minutes 13:40:09 , despite the fact that Virginia 13:40:12 hosted the Q&A session towards the end 13:40:16 (inaudible). 13:40:22 Would you address the question the Q&A about 13:40:24 the relation between 13:40:25 (inaudible) and (inaudible)? 13:40:27 And how they fit together 13:40:29 and benefit each other 13:40:30 ? 13:40:32 This is a question from (inaudible). 13:40:34 13:40:34 >> 13:40:35 Sure. 13:40:37 I think from the point of view 13:40:39 of the astronomy and astrophysics 13:40:42 to Cadle 13:40:44 -- 13:40:47 Decadel 13:40:50 , what the agencies really want to know is 13:40:53 where 13:40:53 facilities and projects 13:40:57 that might again normally be 13:41:02 largely in the purview of Snowmass 13:41:03 impact 13:41:04 astronomy 13:41:06 and astrophysics. 13:41:07 Obviously with the 13:41:09 advent of multi-messenger 13:41:14 astrophysics 13:41:15 , 13:41:17 there's a lot of overlap. 13:41:20 So I think our report, hopefully 13:41:22 , will provide 13:41:23 that perspective 13:41:31 for your planning process, which my 13:41:33 understanding is just getting underway. 13:41:41 13:41:41 >> OK, yeah. 13:41:42 Thank you Fiona. 13:41:44 There are a couple of more questions coming in 13:41:46 in the Q&A session. 13:41:48 I said just that we address them at the end 13:41:51 of the session. 13:41:52 This time I would like to move 13:41:55 to Professor 13:41:57 (unknown term) 13:41:58 from 13:41:58 Juke. 13:42:00 She has been active in 13:42:02 post nuclear particle physics 13:42:06 for most of her career, in particular 13:42:08 (inaudible) for nuclear science 13:42:09 stop that was in 2014/2015 13:42:10 . 13:42:15 Kate will also tell us about the planning 13:42:18 process in nuclear science. 13:42:19 >> Thank you. 13:42:20 Let me share this. 13:42:21 Can you see that? 13:42:23 13:42:23 >> Yeah. 13:42:26 It's not. 13:42:27 Yeah 13:42:31 , OK. 13:42:32 >> OK, thank you. 13:42:33 I like to first make a little bit of disclaimer 13:42:36 that I'm giving this talk 13:42:38 in no official capacity whatsoever. 13:42:39 I'm just 13:42:40 a member of both the 13:42:41 HEP 13:42:44 and GEORGIA BURCKEL: Communities and I have 13:42:46 occur alone to roll in planning 13:42:48 -- and I have a current role in planning 13:42:58 . 13:42:58 I want to thank (unknown term) and (unknown term) 13:43:01 for their input in this talk. 13:43:03 So I will start with the driver for the planning 13:43:06 , for 13:43:09 (unknown term), which is equivalent to he pop, 13:43:12 which is the national community 13:43:15 for their science research, a backup 13:43:17 committee. 13:43:23 There is some difference between the 13:43:24 Snowmass and (inaudible). 13:43:25 It has been much more coupled to 13:43:27 (unknown term), on much 13:43:33 much like the process in ATP which is a 13:43:35 community driven effort 13:43:36 unlike the agency 13:43:39 effort.... 13:43:39 So it's maybe 13:43:40 a little bit more 13:43:42 compact in that way. 13:43:45 This is a slide from John 13:43:47 (unknown term) 13:43:49 describing 13:43:50 all of the aspects 13:44:01 of nuclear physics. 13:44:02 There are many overlaps with what we are 13:44:05 considering in the Snowmass close us – my 13:44:07 process. 13:44:10 Particle physics or subatomic physics as it 13:44:12 is called in Canada. 13:44:13 There are many overlaps. 13:44:14 I made this diagram here 13:44:16 showing different connections to different 13:44:17 aspects of science, astrophysics 13:44:20 , asked her physical objects, cosmology, 13:44:21 properties of 13:44:23 fundamental attractions, 13:44:25 nuclei where there is many connections 13:44:27 and things 13:44:29 here will help the others in any 13:44:33 -- many ways. 13:44:34 This diagram may be thick of this but I have 13:44:37 to emphasize that it's not like 13:44:39 rock, paper scissors 13:44:40 , lizard, Spock 13:44:42 in that (inaudible) 13:44:43 each of these aspects of 13:44:45 part two physical 13:44:49 physics are helping each other. 13:44:57 This happens about every five years or so. 13:45:04 NSAC charge the committee ways coming of 13:45:06 the long-range plan 13:45:10 . 13:45:10 Sometimes it's as short as four years or as long 13:45:13 as seven. 13:45:14 It depends on the conditions of the era I 13:45:17 think. 13:45:17 In the last one was in 2015, 13:45:19 Reaching for the Rising 13:45:25 -- horizon. 13:45:26 This is how the planning process works. 13:45:28 It's a little bit more complicated than this 13:45:30 P5 thing. 13:45:31 It's a smaller community than ATP. 13:45:35 The working group actually has about 60 13:45:37 members from different sectors of the committee 13:45:39 plus some international observers. 13:45:40 There is a phase 13:45:41 over several months 13:45:42 of community input 13:45:45 . 13:45:46 There are what are called 10 meetings 13:45:48 . 13:45:48 This happened over the summer of 2014 13:45:53 where there were four different sectors 13:45:54 , education, 13:45:55 innovation 13:45:59 , (inaudible) and nuclear after physics. 13:46:01 And fundamentals is the trees, neutrinos 13:46:04 and relevant astrophysics. 13:46:06 In all of these, I would say there is 13:46:09 overlap with topics 13:46:10 under consideration in Snowmass. 13:46:16 There was a solicitation for white 13:46:18 papers that were submitted in January 13:46:20 2015. 13:46:20 The different parts of the working group wrote 13:46:23 text and there was what was called a resolution 13:46:25 meeting of the entire group in April 13:46:27 and the report was finalized in October. 13:46:29 These are the recommendations 13:46:31 from the 13:46:33 (inaudible) 13:46:35 2015 LRP. 13:46:37 Again it's a bit more 13:46:38 precise 13:46:42 than P5 which had a large number of 13:46:44 recommendations that were really only 13:46:46 for big recommendations in this report. 13:46:53 The first was to capitalize on 13:46:55 investments already made. 13:46:56 Second one was to develop and deploy 13:46:58 the US-led timescale (Reads). 13:46:59 The third one was to construct a high-energy 13:47:02 (Reads). 13:47:06 In the fourth one was to 13:47:10 increase investment in small-scale and (Reads). 13:47:15 Let me go through 13:47:20 the progress since 2015 13:47:21 on accomplishing 13:47:24 the recommendations. 13:47:26 Starting with one in four 13:47:30 , which is maybe a collection of different 13:47:32 things. 13:47:33 This is just a set of highlights 13:47:35 from the most recent talks 13:47:36 by Tim 13:47:39 Holman and Elayna 13:47:41 Opera at the most recent 13:47:46 NSAC meeting in March before all the chaos 13:47:48 started. 13:47:51 So just listing these things. 13:47:56 F rib is almost complete and the 13:47:58 transition from an SCL 13:48:00 to F rib is in progress. 13:48:03 This thing smaller scale happening there. 13:48:11 There is the list, which is different to 13:48:14 the other one. 13:48:15 This is a facility in Oregon. 13:48:16 The (unknown term) lab is a 13:48:18 part 13:48:20 -- program underway. 13:48:23 And upgrades to the 13:48:24 Phoenix 13:48:30 upgrade is continuing. 13:48:31 These are just the examples. 13:48:32 This is not the conference of list of 13:48:35 everything that is going on that will be covered 13:48:37 by regulations one. 13:48:39 There are many many smaller things. 13:48:40 Let me know says in the lead recommendation 13:48:43 three 13:48:46 which is of interest to the Snowmass 13:48:48 committee. 13:48:48 This is the 13:48:54 ion collider. 13:48:55 There has been a long period of reports that 13:48:57 have been exploring the science that can be done 13:49:00 the USC culminating in (inaudible) with the 13:49:02 national 13:49:03 academies report. 13:49:04 This was 30 influential I think. 13:49:07 These are milestones. 13:49:08 These are all taken from 13:49:09 Tim Hallman's slides 13:49:11 at MSAC. 13:49:12 It was a mission 13:49:14 needs statement approved 13:49:21 and total project cost is one to 2.5 billion. 13:49:25 Independent cost review was completed. 13:49:26 There is a site assessment 13:49:29 and CD zero was approved by December 13:49:33 and the fairly major recent news is that the 13:49:36 site selection for Brookhaven 13:49:37 was announced. 13:49:40 Here's another slide from Tim Hallman for 13:49:42 really the prime directive 13:49:46 states here is that the project will be carried 13:49:49 out as a fully sexual partnership between 13:49:51 the BNL and J lab 13:49:53 with major participations by all 13:49:56 . 13:49:56 I won't go through 13:49:58 these bullet points on 13:50:00 the nature 13:50:05 of the partnership. 13:50:06 It's a fairly large ticket. 13:50:08 Clearly this is going to be a major 13:50:10 activity 13:50:15 of nuclear physics 13:50:17 in the next coming cycle. 13:50:20 The project team is working 13:50:22 on being prepared for the CD one 13:50:24 review in 2021. 13:50:31 Here's another one. 13:50:32 This is recommendation to, of great interest to 13:50:35 my own community in neutrino physics 13:50:36 . 13:50:37 (Reads) 13:50:38 . 13:50:38 This is 13:50:43 in the US and this is not the same in other 13:50:46 countries, but in the US, 13:50:49 neutrinos double beta decay experiments are 13:50:50 facilitated by 13:50:51 (Reads). 13:50:55 Most of this is the kind of thing where the 13:50:58 physics is really crossing the boundaries 13:50:59 between particle physics and nuclear physics 13:51:01 and it involves nuclei but also really things 13:51:04 that are very dear to the hearts of the 13:51:06 community 13:51:07 of the ATP people. 13:51:10 – Mike ATP people. 13:51:22 Here's something for my last meeting with Tim 13:51:25 Hallman discussing this double beta decay. 13:51:26 There's really 13:51:27 free front-runner candidates. 13:51:28 There is the 13:51:34 (unknown term) detector legend, Cupid and 13:51:35 (unknown term). 13:51:37 Three candidate site locations 13:51:39 and this community 13:51:41 has made a lot of progress 13:51:42 in R&D 13:51:45 for next-generation experiments and ongoing 13:51:46 experiments are also 13:51:47 improving 13:51:49 the limits. 13:51:50 There has also been a great 13:51:54 progress on theory and there has been a 13:51:56 downselect which is still under discussion. 13:51:58 There is no word 13:52:00 on when and how it will take place. 13:52:02 It will depend when we have the site and the 13:52:05 technology. 13:52:06 OK, so I think this is far really the summary 13:52:09 and the future, the key points 13:52:11 . 13:52:11 So the 2015 13:52:16 long-range plan for NSAC 13:52:17 is really 13:52:22 ... 13:52:22 the recommendations have really been followed. 13:52:24 If that are really advanced stage of 13:52:27 employment and is coming to the advanced 13:52:29 cycle. 13:52:29 It's coming around time for the next one. 13:52:32 One kind of... 13:52:33 and the 13:52:34 EIC is a major function collapsed. 13:52:38 (inaudible) downselect process are not yet 13:52:40 determined. 13:52:41 But presumably that's coming soon. 13:52:44 Since it really seems to be time for the next 13:52:47 one, there is 13:52:51 one in the works. 13:52:52 I can't speak to when it will be. 13:52:54 It's not yet determined. 13:52:56 But I'm guessing it will be soon. 13:52:58 I can't really say more. 13:53:01 OK, and so let me just end with a final note 13:53:04 for me 13:53:05 . 13:53:05 I mean, there are so many internet apps, 13:53:07 overlaps and interconnections 13:53:14 with nuclear physics and ATP and beyond, also 13:53:16 including astrophysics. 13:53:22 And I think it's really important for the 13:53:24 Snowmass process to pay 13:53:27 good attention to not exploit these overlaps 13:53:29 and very beautiful things can grow in the 13:53:31 cracks between the interfaces. 13:53:35 And I think I will stop there. 13:53:37 Grosbeak thanks a lot Kate. 13:53:43 -- Thanks a lot Kate. 13:53:44 Thanks for keeping on time. 13:53:55 Let's reserve the questions for the end of 13:53:57 the session if you don't mind. 13:54:01 We can also answer questions over slack 13:54:03 . 13:54:05 In the meantime, 13:54:09 let me switchover and tell you 13:54:10 some 13:54:15 -- introduce you to (inaudible), who I'm 13:54:17 sure all of us know 13:54:18 is an (inaudible) for physics 13:54:22 and my formal 13:54:24 faculty colleague at Berkeley 13:54:28 where he is still head of (inaudible). 13:54:30 Hi Jim. 13:54:31 He will give us the perspective 13:54:32 from 13:54:33 the DOE. 13:54:34 Thank you. 13:54:37 13:54:37 >> 13:54:39 Thanks theory. 13:54:41 Y 13:54:41 ur 13:54:41 i 13:54:42 . 13:54:46 I think everyone is aware that the last 13:54:48 round of planning process was a huge 13:54:50 success. 13:54:51 And I think part of that was because of the heavy 13:54:54 involvement of the entire community 13:54:56 in developing 13:54:58 the range of opportunities that we 13:55:00 have in front of us. 13:55:02 So, I wanted to remind you 13:55:03 that you have the flexibility 13:55:05 within your university 13:55:07 programs to devote 13:55:08 some fraction of your time 13:55:10 to the community planning efforts 13:55:14 and no special authorization is needed 13:55:15 for that. 13:55:17 So please participate, because it's a big deal. 13:55:19 So, 13:55:21 I have a few slogans for you today 13:55:23 from the last planning process. 13:55:27 So, one of the slogans is 13:55:30 that bickering scientists get nothing. 13:55:32 So we hope that at the end of this process, 13:55:35 after the P5 deliberations, 13:55:37 that people will be able to stand behind the 13:55:40 plan in the same way 13:55:41 that they've unified 13:55:42 behind the current P5 plan. 13:55:45 But it's important at this stage 13:55:48 to let 1000 flowers bloom 13:55:50 and 13:55:53 bring as many ideas as we can to the table. 13:55:56 That's very important 13:55:57 to be able to 13:56:00 give the P5 panel 13:56:01 options 13:56:02 to choose from 13:56:03 . 13:56:09 So of course, at the next P5, will have to 13:56:13 call make the physical and financial reality 13:56:15 for the field. 13:56:16 So as some guidelines 13:56:18 , most of our projects are up the 13:56:21 -- at the upper limits of what 13:56:23 we can afford. 13:56:24 The last P5 13:56:26 emphasized 13:56:28 budget scenarios 13:56:29 that we should concentrate 13:56:31 on the ILC 13:56:31 and the FCC 13:56:34 and that guidance 13:56:36 still guides our current efforts 13:56:40 on future (inaudible). 13:56:41 So there's work ongoing 13:56:42 and trying to realize the ILC 13:56:44 and discussions 13:56:45 have started between DOE 13:56:46 and the CERN 13:56:49 management concerning US involvement 13:56:51 in the SCC R&D. 13:56:55 So those things are kind of moving ahead 13:56:58 based on the last P5 plan. 13:57:00 50 tell us how much 13:57:04 emphasis is where. 13:57:07 I think there should be a lot of emphasis on 13:57:10 midscale projects, 13:57:13 saying parity to the hundred million dollar 13:57:15 rage that has a conception to physics 13:57:17 timescale that's less than say eight years to 13:57:19 provide more opportunity for students and 13:57:21 postdocs career development. 13:57:22 So those sort of less expensive projects 13:57:24 I think should get 13:57:25 a lot of attention 13:57:27 from Snowmass. 13:57:34 Also, another slogan is, reuse, repurpose, 13:57:36 recycle and up cycle. 13:57:41 So ideas that leverage existing or integrated 13:57:43 into future facilities at DOE labs and generate 13:57:45 unique capabilities, we need to keep an eye out 13:57:48 for those. 13:57:49 This been a lot of investment under the 13:57:51 current P5. 13:57:52 How do we maximally exploit that in the next 13:57:55 period? 13:57:56 So generating unique capabilities worldwide 13:57:58 is important for us 13:58:02 to help move the global program along. 13:58:06 So something else you think about 13:58:09 , infrastructure products and 13:58:15 (unknown term) test facilities should also 13:58:17 be part of the discussion. 13:58:18 What we need to keep the research moving? 13:58:20 And some of those test facilities get to be 13:58:23 expensive 13:58:23 and is probably some info structure projects 13:58:25 at the labs that are needed. 13:58:27 So those are for game for discussions. 13:58:30 An issue we face is that expectations of 13:58:33 brilliance and unity for us 13:58:35 are even higher than last time. 13:58:37 So we are going to have to uncover the best ideas 13:58:40 . 13:58:47 So my comment on where that was. 13:58:49 We went into the last planning process, most 13:58:51 of the stakeholders, 13:58:52 eating congressional appropriators and 13:58:53 officials 13:58:54 inside the DOE at high levels 13:58:55 considered 13:58:56 the 13:58:58 six community to basically be rebels 13:59:00 or like the toggle Bob 13:59:02 -- Taliban or something. 13:59:03 So I think 13:59:04 what we 13:59:07 are recovering from that in the last period. 13:59:10 So it's expected that we will be unified 13:59:12 in whatever plan we come up with. 13:59:16 So now the time during the Snowmass 13:59:21 process to get all the ideas on the table so 13:59:24 they get heard by P5 and your idea gets to have a 13:59:28 chance to bottle up to the top of the pile. 13:59:30 So then we can unify behind that. 13:59:32 So keep in mind that partnering 13:59:34 with other agencies can help leisure Ridge 13:59:39 -- leverage our research and we can do 13:59:41 more research faster. 13:59:42 As an example, 13:59:43 NASA 13:59:44 is intent 13:59:46 on establishing a main base 13:59:48 and eventually going to Mars. 13:59:50 I don't think 13:59:51 those notions 13:59:52 inside NASA 13:59:53 are going to change 13:59:56 from one administration to the next. 13:59:59 It's a sort of long-range plan for NASA 14:00:02 that involves a permanent installation 14:00:03 on the moon. 14:00:04 So can we exploit that 14:00:06 to do some kind of science 14:00:08 ? 14:00:08 And 14:00:10 there you, you know, 14:00:11 obviously 14:00:12 launching things into space 14:00:14 causes 14:00:20 -- calls a lot more money, but maybe NASA 14:00:23 has that so we just need to get some science on 14:00:26 that. 14:00:50 The DOE at the secondary level, 14:00:52 it has been realized again if you are can 14:00:54 establish a moon base, you gotta get power from 14:00:57 start and who better to help you than the 14:01:00 department to get you some energy. 14:01:01 What kind of power that will be, I don't low, 14:01:04 maybe it is solar powers,-- panels may be 14:01:07 to small reactors, it is not clear how this is 14:01:10 going to work. 14:01:11 There is no plans for that but there is 14:01:13 involvement of DOE that is inevitable and 14:01:16 exploiting cheaper access to space 14:01:17 that everybody 14:01:20 is hoping to get a companies like space X. 14:01:25 The last P5 science questions are still 14:01:27 compelling 14:01:30 but one of the big questions is what 14:01:32 answers are we going to get in the next decade 14:01:35 and how do we increase the risk of discovery? 14:01:38 I think, thinking about 14:01:41 what the questions are, but which ones are we 14:01:44 going to get answers to, some questions 14:01:47 like dark matter are just difficult, we have 14:01:49 to figure out how to spread 14:01:52 our resources to cover as much 14:01:54 of the possible 14:01:55 face base as we can 14:01:58 and see if we can actually move ahead 14:02:01 in that space. 14:02:04 There was a lot of activity on that 14:02:09 for P5, some of which is just now happening 14:02:13 many of us hope we would see evidence for 14:02:16 dark matter and see that evidently was naïve. 14:02:19 That's 14:02:22 as Joanne mentioned this morning, 14:02:26 that is an area that's gone a lot of attention 14:02:30 from the community and the attention as well 14:02:32 deserved. 14:02:36 We have to think about how we are going to move 14:02:40 ahead to get answers to some of the compelling 14:02:43 questions that we have gotten. 14:02:45 I think I will stop there we just those few 14:02:49 remarks and good luck to the community in this 14:02:52 process and I hope a lot of good ideas will come 14:02:56 up with this, 14:02:57 there ought to be 14:03:00 there is at least one good idea in there 14:03:03 somewhere. 14:03:04 Okay, thank you for your time. 14:03:06 Back to you. 14:03:08 > 14:03:08 > 14:03:10 Thank you Jim, I hope you can stay 14:03:13 for the last 10 or 15 minutes or so 14:03:16 , 14:03:17 > 14:03:17 > 14:03:20 I will stay for the Q&A session, maybe someone 14:03:24 has a question for me. 14:03:26 >>Thanks. 14:03:27 In which case, I would like to introduce 14:03:30 the program director 14:03:31 for 14:03:36 UNICEF and he will give us 14:03:38 some perspective 14:03:41 from the science foundation. 14:03:43 > 14:03:43 > 14:03:44 Let me see. 14:03:49 Hopefully this is coming up. 14:03:56 I will give you the perspective 14:03:58 of the natural science foundation 14:04:00 --- 14:04:01 National Science Foundation process 14:04:03 for physics. 14:04:07 I think personally, to go back to basics, 14:04:11 because this will form our evolvement 14:04:15 . 14:04:16 Why are we involved in particle physics 14:04:18 question mark it goes back 14:04:20 to the first part of it which is really to 14:04:24 promote the progress of science but the other 14:04:26 part 14:04:27 is also important. 14:04:29 Why are we doing this question mark 14:04:31 ? 14:04:31 Particle physics is clearly a frontier 14:04:34 science, how do we do it? 14:04:36 We basically do it by 14:04:38 funding academic based researchers 14:04:43 and our people of the universities, focusing 14:04:46 on education and training, 14:04:48 over the next generation of workforce. 14:04:50 We also tried to add 14:04:54 in everything we do, try to add value to 14:04:57 exercising partnerships and broadening 14:04:59 participation and inclusion of different 14:05:00 communities in science. 14:05:03 When do we get involved, what is the 14:05:06 trigger point 14:05:06 for our project question mark and I 14:05:09 think we can say in 14:05:11 relevant news process when something comes to 14:05:13 us that is aligned 14:05:16 to the community and driven needs of the 14:05:19 science, which also align to the agency 14:05:21 goals and the national priorities, and of 14:05:24 course, it is, with excellent international 14:05:26 merit 14:05:26 because the competition is quite fierce. 14:05:29 Which are to 14:05:34 review criteria, basically. 14:05:35 What we do with physics with respect 14:05:37 to particle physics? 14:05:42 Here, this gives a review of some of the 14:05:46 science that we covered in the physics division 14:05:48 and covered everything from 14:05:50 physics, 14:05:51 plus my nuclear 14:05:53 elementary particle 14:05:54 and these problems 14:05:56 - 14:05:56 - 14:05:57 all these programs have 14:05:58 both an experiment 14:06:00 and theory component 14:06:01 will stop will have 14:06:04 physics of the symptoms, 14:06:06 quantum information science, 14:06:08 and astrophysics that we have a number 14:06:11 of programs 14:06:15 related to software data and physics 14:06:17 information and frontier, 14:06:18 other activities related to 14:06:20 product participation and 14:06:23 physics from peer centres. 14:06:25 These are investigator 14:06:27 multi-investigator small 14:06:28 programs 14:06:30 from basic research 14:06:34 we also have larger programs, Centre 14:06:37 and Institute scale efforts 14:06:39 that range from 14:06:42 $2-$5 million per year. 14:06:45 These are generally multidisciplinary 14:06:47 , they also involve a lot of partnerships 14:06:52 a few examples related to particle physics. 14:06:56 An institute for software for 14:06:57 the next 14:06:59 philosophy 14:07:00 - 14:07:00 - 14:07:02 Centre for bright beings of science, 14:07:05 which is science of technology Centre 14:07:07 based at Cornell 14:07:08 and 2 very recent works 14:07:12 then network from physics and symmetries 14:07:16 which is a new physics frontier Centre 14:07:18 based 14:07:19 work fully and 14:07:20 also 14:07:22 very new Institute for 14:07:31 artificial intelligence on implementable 14:07:32 interactions based on IT. 14:07:33 And one common characteristic of these 14:07:36 is we actually they have partnerships within 14:07:38 in some cases also outside and 14:07:40 cofounding from different directors, 14:07:42 like the incident has cofounded from 14:07:44 the colleagues 14:07:45 size 14:07:47 and 14:07:49 science and engineering director and 14:07:51 cofounding 14:07:51 . 14:07:56 The other morality 14:07:58 of how we support a community 14:08:01 of course with the infrastructure and 14:08:03 facilities and here we have 14:08:05 CMS 14:08:05 and the recent 14:08:06 project 14:08:09 over 150 million 14:08:13 over $150 million that has just started last 14:08:16 April. 14:08:17 We have ice cube and we also have 14:08:20 LAC B which is a smaller 14:08:23 institute but it is still 14:08:25 essential. 14:08:26 These are the things related 14:08:29 to 14:08:30 particle physics. 14:08:35 Here, of course, 14:08:39 we can't support anything without an 14:08:41 actual budget and 14:08:47 hear the message I want to send, I don't want to 14:08:51 go into too many details, The Charter I 14:08:54 have a sort of the budget for the director 14:08:57 of mathematical and physical sciences where 14:08:59 we sit as physics this is actually the budget 14:09:02 request what I'm showing you are the different 14:09:05 colours and they actually show in the 14:09:07 stars, we only have 14:09:09 2 fiscal 19 but the message here I want to 14:09:12 send is twofold that the actual budget request in 14:09:15 the actual 14:09:16 actual actual budget we get has not been 14:09:19 matching very well in the last few years, 14:09:25 and that causes some challenges for planning. 14:09:27 But the other trend I want to show you is and 14:09:31 you have seen the multidisciplinary's 14:09:34 separate offices within that captures things 14:09:36 that are more directed like 14:09:41 quantum leap, all of the things that are 14:09:44 directed. 14:09:45 You have seen sort of an increase and the 3rd 14:09:48 message is on the physics budget that 14:09:51 tracked the overall budgets 14:09:52 . 14:09:57 What is our perspective 14:09:59 on this process? 14:10:01 I think 14:10:03 for us, 14:10:03 it's really 14:10:07 a survey on the state of the science of 14:10:10 particle physics and 14:10:12 a community view or whatever compelling 14:10:14 physics 14:10:14 . 14:10:19 I think this is one of the first pillars of 14:10:23 building a program, what is the community 14:10:25 and I think we think this is a unique 14:10:28 opportunity for the community to number one, 14:10:31 think big, but also think small. 14:10:33 Think about the big opportunities of the 14:10:35 next accelerators but also think about 14:10:38 the small efforts that could be 14:10:40 may be answering some of the same questions. 14:10:47 Thinking inside the box but also specially else 14:10:50 think outside the box and be creative but it's 14:10:53 also important to think inside the box. 14:10:56 Try to make connections to other fields, Kate 14:10:59 mentioned that in reference to nuclear 14:11:01 physics. 14:11:01 And actually, also for us it is important to 14:11:05 really broaden participation we think, 14:11:06 we are convinced that would make the field of 14:11:09 particle physics better. 14:11:12 We also, as Jim mentioned, we hope the 14:11:15 next generation of folks, the students 14:11:18 are fully engaged in this process because 14:11:21 it is your future 14:11:22 and so we are looking to you 14:11:25 to really take ownership of this. 14:11:27 This is your voice 14:11:30 and eventually we are going have to sort out 14:11:33 what we want 14:11:36 from what we need. 14:11:38 What we need from what we want, and in order to 14:11:42 really address the questions. 14:11:43 We will have academies and surveys feedback but 14:11:46 I think for now, it is important in the 14:11:49 community really thinks 14:11:51 of what you really need, and what are 14:11:54 important questions. 14:11:55 Another pillar of building a program 14:11:57 our national priorities and here you have heard 14:12:00 their priorities 14:12:03 , 14:12:04 the congressional priorities 14:12:10 in the priorities of the executive branch, 14:12:12 for example, from Congress, 14:12:14 and from the Pres., 14:12:16 of artificial intelligence, these 14:12:18 things, they really take 14:12:20 they have an impact on how we shape our 14:12:23 programs. 14:12:24 That is a 2nd pillar. 14:12:26 The 3rd pillar of building a program 14:12:28 are the actual agency mission priorities 14:12:30 and goals. 14:12:31 And even the program priorities. 14:12:34 Here, as an example, in 2016, 14:12:41 the tenant big ideas which have a lot of 14:12:45 overlap with particle physics, for example, 14:12:47 multi messenger astronomy has come up 14:12:49 out of it harnessing the data evolution, 14:12:57 midscale infrastructure and quantum leap which 14:12:59 we do have some corrections to that. 14:13:02 And, right now, 14:13:03 the National science Board is looking at what 14:13:05 they call division 2030, one is the agency what 14:13:09 are the priorities going to be, 10 years from 14:13:12 now, all of these things put together shape 14:13:14 our priorities. 14:13:16 Of course, 14:13:17 I have to mention, for example, 14:13:23 even at the program level, the physics 14:13:26 division level, we have expressed an interest in 14:13:29 this is just a recent colleague letter we put 14:13:32 out which is basically about searching beyond 14:13:34 physics using 14:13:35 AI, we want to bring the particle physics 14:13:38 and the communities together 14:13:40 to see what can be done. 14:13:42 These are sort of 14:13:47 the 3rd priority agency groups. 14:13:49 And then, we have to put it all together and for 14:13:52 that, it is quite difficult because there 14:13:55 are many 14:13:57 constraints, and of course budgets. 14:13:59 There is also tension between fundamental 14:14:01 research, particle physics, and more 14:14:03 directed 14:14:04 are more immediate societal impact but I 14:14:06 think there is room to play within both and 14:14:11 I think our message to you to the community is 14:14:14 that 14:14:15 the more opportunities, scientific opportunities 14:14:17 of community puts under 14:14:18 the menu on the science menu, 14:14:20 big, small, inside and outside, 14:14:22 they higher the chance 14:14:24 that they can order from that 14:14:26 menu 14:14:28 for things for us to do. 14:14:32 And I think that is really important, to 14:14:35 cover the whole spectrum. 14:14:39 The really most effective when 14:14:41 confronted with really well articulated 14:14:43 priorities and I point to the success we have 14:14:46 in the past with the phase 1 14:14:48 and the high velocity upgrades 14:14:50 which we have delivered on. 14:14:56 Just to end, I think budgets have been 14:14:59 challenging for us since the last but we had 14:15:02 a number 14:15:03 , 14:15:04 and the centres 14:15:07 that we will be able to spin up 14:15:10 the future 14:15:12 , 14:15:15 mostly to partnerships and this is really 14:15:18 important because that way we are able to 14:15:21 leverage our relatively small investment, both 14:15:23 within 14:15:26 and outside. 14:15:27 Connections to other disciplines 14:15:29 is important, societal Riverton's 14:15:31 relevance and I think it is essential 14:15:34 we be inclusive 14:15:47 and that goes without saying. 14:15:49 I repeat what I said, from our perspective, we 14:15:52 divide the community to think big and think 14:15:55 small also, thank inside and outside the box and 14:15:58 try to make corrections to other fields and 14:16:01 broaden the participation of 14:16:02 particle physics to really honestly make it 14:16:05 better. 14:16:05 We really hope for a full engagement from the 14:16:13 14:16:13 >> 14:16:14 Thank you 14:16:15 all 14:16:17 , 14:16:19 all our speakers. 14:16:22 We will now transition to the Q&A sessions, 14:16:24 a number of questions 14:16:26 came in 14:16:29 in the Q&A interface 14:16:31 . 14:16:35 In order 14:16:37 ... 14:16:38 And in the meantime 14:16:43 the questions will be copied to Slack 14:16:46 . 14:16:47 The first question 14:16:50 is for Fiona Harrison, 14:16:54 perhaps it is a more general 14:16:55 question 14:16:59 , this is from 14:17:01 Marcel santos 14:17:02 – can you 14:17:07 comment on prospects for inter agency projects? 14:17:16 Maybe it is a broader question. 14:17:19 FIONA: 14:17:21 I can comment 14:17:23 that 14:17:24 there were 14:17:29 a number of important interagency projects put forward 14:17:33 to Astro 2020. 14:17:37 Including of course the MBS 4, 14:17:39 joint 14:17:41 with NSF and 14:17:42 DoE 14:17:44 , 14:17:47 properly also polar programs I think. 14:17:51 Projects like that 14:17:53 , that 14:17:55 have strong relevance for 14:17:59 astronomy and astrophysics, 14:18:01 but also where 14:18:03 DoE 14:18:06 is to take an important role 14:18:08 are absolutely being 14:18:09 considered. 14:18:10 I mentioned 14:18:13 that one, you can find the White Paper 14:18:16 that was submitted 14:18:17 on the public website, 14:18:19 but there were others as well. 14:18:21 I think 14:18:22 there is no 14:18:26 ... 14:18:26 What the community 14:18:27 puts forward 14:18:28 to us 14:18:29 that is relevant 14:18:31 for the survey, 14:18:32 we consider 14:18:35 , independent of the split 14:18:39 between funding agencies or international participation 14:18:42 is also, of course, important. 14:18:46 14:18:46 >> 14:18:49 Thank you, Fiona. 14:18:55 If Jim 14:18:56 or 14:18:57 Saul 14:19:02 wants to add anything on interagency cooperation? 14:19:05 14:19:05 >> 14:19:08 We are all for interagency cooperation 14:19:14 and we've done it, it's important for us, it's part of our DNA. 14:19:20 14:19:20 >> 14:19:20 Thank you. 14:19:26 I will 14:19:31 not necessarily go through the questions in order, if you don't 14:19:34 mind. 14:19:42 A question for 14:19:43 Saul 14:19:45 and Jim 14:19:46 , 14:19:47 the next 14:19:50 generation of wave detectors will be expensive, 14:19:53 any advice on cooperation between 14:19:55 the NSF and 14:19:57 QE 14:19:58 on 14:19:59 funding 14:20:01 ? 14:20:05 14:20:05 >> 14:20:08 Jim, why don't you take that one? 14:20:13 14:20:13 >> 14:20:19 Community input 14:20:21 is important, to figure out 14:20:23 how 14:20:29 that makes sense. 14:20:30 I think of the gravitational wave detectors get big enough, 14:20:34 you will eventually have to put them out in space to get the 14:20:37 low-frequency 14:20:38 and that becomes a NASA issue as well. 14:20:40 It depends on community feeling 14:20:46 about where gravity wave detectors fit into the program. 14:20:49 There may be some new techniques coming along 14:20:51 to give us additional 14:20:52 ground 14:20:56 -based sensitivity, that could be interesting. 14:20:58 I will toss that 14:20:59 back to Saul 14:21:01 with that nonanswer. 14:21:03 14:21:03 >> 14:21:07 I will reply with partly another nonanswer, 14:21:10 cooperation will happen when it makes sense. 14:21:14 Astro 14:21:15 2020, 14:21:18 and it was mentioned earlier 14:21:19 that it 14:21:22 has a component of this, in particular the R&D 14:21:25 that needs to be done. 14:21:27 Clearly we are reaching the limit 14:21:29 of what we can do. 14:21:31 We have done very well 14:21:36 , NSF has with our international partners and the next iteration 14:21:39 would be a different ball game. 14:21:41 We need to 14:21:47 take our cue from the community. 14:21:49 14:21:49 >> 14:21:51 Also, 14:21:51 in 14:21:53 a similar vein, 14:22:06 a question from 14:22:08 Antonio Hubbard, 14:22:10 moving away from finding 14:22:13 (inaudible), is that correct 14:22:14 , 14:22:16 and if so, how does that 14:22:17 affect 14:22:18 the future 14:22:20 partnerships? 14:22:22 14:22:22 >> 14:22:32 I think we are waiting 14:22:33 to hear the Snowmass 14:22:36 process before figuring 14:22:37 out what we're doing. 14:22:39 The current dark matter 14:22:42 program was covered by Joanne this morning 14:22:44 pretty well. 14:22:44 Right now 14:22:46 we appear to be moving out 14:22:48 in all directions. 14:22:50 I think 14:22:52 that may 14:22:53 continue 14:22:56 and we will get community input to see where people want to go 14:23:00 and respond to that. 14:23:02 Nothing is set in stone is the answer to that question. 14:23:05 It remains to be seen. 14:23:10 People should think 14:23:13 broadly about where is the best place to do 14:23:15 the science 14:23:17 and in the case of dark matter 14:23:19 it's really a question of 14:23:21 is it possible for 14:23:24 us to look under certain rocks for dark Pat 14:23:26 matter 14:23:28 and where we don't look for it, 14:23:31 are we missing something? 14:23:33 That is a wide-open 14:23:38 space at the moment, people should think hard about that. 14:23:42 14:23:42 >> 14:23:43 Thank you. 14:23:48 While we're on the topic of dark matter, 14:23:51 I will throw in another question, 14:23:53 this one for 14:23:54 Saul 14:23:55 . 14:24:03 Is it possible 14:24:07 to make dark matter searches and other particle physics topics 14:24:10 part of the mission of 14:24:12 NSF possible national 14:24:14 (inaudible) 14:24:15 laboratory 14:24:18 ? 14:24:18 I am assuming 14:24:19 this applies to 14:24:20 specific 14:24:23 ... 14:24:26 14:24:26 >> I would say 14:24:28 , just 14:24:31 talk to us. 14:24:32 We are open to all sorts of ideas. 14:24:35 Make sure that makes it to the Snowmass 14:24:38 process. 14:24:38 To approach us, yes. 14:24:41 14:24:41 >> 14:24:42 Thank you. 14:24:47 There is a question 14:24:50 from 14:24:52 Maria 14:24:53 for the panel. 14:24:57 Five or six years ago, 14:25:00 what are the thoughts 14:25:03 on engagement ILC goes forward 14:25:08 and for FCC and more broadly 14:25:12 what is the US agency's stands on the 14:25:17 traditional mega projects especially given our own 14:25:19 (inaudible) 14:25:19 ... 14:25:25 That is attracting important international engagement. 14:25:28 14:25:28 >> 14:25:34 For the big mega projects there is a US government 14:25:38 position that goes beyond just DOA and NSF, 14:25:43 the big important international infrastructure, 14:25:45 we would like to have them installed 14:25:49 in friendly countries that are friendly to our way of doing science 14:25:54 , where our way is broadly defined, 14:25:57 how Europe and the US have grown up 14:26:00 doing science, along with our Asian colleagues. 14:26:04 Those big investments 14:26:08 draw international attention 14:26:09 and 14:26:10 become 14:26:13 almost instantly 14:26:15 politicised. 14:26:18 The US policy 14:26:21 is to try to collaborate effectively 14:26:22 with our like-minded 14:26:24 partners. 14:26:30 Automatically, Japanese attempt 14:26:31 's to 14:26:37 establish an ILC in Japan get sympathy from the 14:26:40 US government and likewise at FCC at 14:26:42 sern 14:26:44 C 14:26:45 E 14:26:45 R 14:26:46 N 14:26:48 get sympathy. 14:26:50 Those projects are so large, 14:26:53 they really need 14:26:54 interregional 14:26:58 partnerships to realize those machines. 14:27:02 Exploration is already 14:27:02 underway 14:27:06 to see what special expertise the US brings to the table to help 14:27:10 CERN 14:27:14 with the FCC for example and can we work with our Japanese friends to 14:27:18 realize and ILC in Japan. 14:27:20 Based on the previous P 5, 14:27:24 those were high priorities in the community 14:27:28 and then expanded budgets scenarios, 14:27:31 we appear to be 14:27:35 in NX mandate budget scenario, those discussions are ongoing, 14:27:38 we are hoping before the next P5 14:27:40 we can 14:27:43 determine whether the Japanese are interested in 14:27:45 hosting and ILC. 14:27:48 I don't know if that can be achieved, 14:27:50 but there is work 14:27:52 going on in that area 14:27:54 and as I said, 14:27:56 the FCC 14:27:59 discussions have started with the CERN 14:28:00 management to see 14:28:02 where the US 14:28:06 sets. 14:28:06 I don't know that answers the question 14:28:08 or not. 14:28:11 14:28:11 >> 14:28:13 I don't know if Saul 14:28:14 wants to 14:28:16 add anything? 14:28:19 We have a couple of minutes 14:28:21 , 14:28:26 I'll pick a couple of questions from the list. 14:28:33 It may be a difficult question for Jim 14:28:37 – what is the impact of 14:28:39 LB NF June 14:28:42 funding challenges in the budget for 14:28:44 (unknown term) 14:28:46 going forward 14:28:46 ? 14:28:52 14:28:53 >> 14:28:55 Hopefully, 14:29:00 the kind treatment we've been getting from congressional 14:29:03 supporters will continue for a while longer. 14:29:06 It would be helpful to the project if the funding 14:29:09 could go up a little bit more. 14:29:12 We won't know whether that is happening 14:29:15 , thundering is a year by year thing and we don't 14:29:18 know where we are in fiscal 21 yet 14:29:21 except we are on a continuing resolution, 14:29:23 we are thrilled with 14:29:24 did not have a government 14:29:27 shutdown, that's a good thing. 14:29:29 But 14:29:31 the project, all of our projects, 14:29:34 plan for interruptions in the funding 14:29:38 and continuing resolutions on a regular basis. 14:29:40 community in the process and especially from our 14:29:43 next generation of leaders. 14:29:44 That is all I have, thank you. 14:29:47 There were already built in the project plan, I 14:29:50 think now our project team 14:29:52 projects are sufficiently 14:29:53 sophisticated 14:29:55 that nobody tries to buy anything 14:29:59 in the first quarter of the fiscal year because 14:30:02 you can expect there to be any one. 14:30:05 So I don't think 14:30:06 there's that kind of immediate impact from 14:30:09 the current certainty. 14:30:13 > 14:30:13 > 14:30:15 Okay, thanks. 14:30:16 I think 14:30:17 this gets us 14:30:20 2:30 PM central time. 14:30:21 I would like to thank 14:30:23 all of the 14:30:26 morning and afternoon speakers and panelists. 14:30:31 You have a 15 minute break, and after that we 14:30:34 have an exciting town hall session 14:30:38 , a number of talks from the community members 14:30:41 and so 14:30:42 hope you join. 14:30:47 For this morning and afternoon speakers and 14:30:50 number of questions 14:30:52 if you are not 14:30:56 on slack, forward the question amoeba. 14:30:59 14:30:59 >> 14:31:00 Yes send me your email because I'm not on slack 14:31:04 . 14:31:04 14:31:05 >> 14:31:08 Okay, think very much everyone, and we will 14:31:10 reconvene atOkay, think very much everyone, and 14:31:13 we will reconvene at 2:45 PM Central. 14:31:15 (Break)