DUSEL North America Deep Underground Science & Engineering Laboratory

Transcription

1 DUSEL North America Deep Underground Science & Engineering Laboratory Rick Gaitskell (Brown), on behalf of Bernard Sadoulet (UCB) Gaitskell see recent talks at plus web links in this talk

2 Useful Web Links (DUSEL) Recent Meeting at LBL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS Reports on underground science Technical Evaluation of Underground Laboratory Sites Lead workshops on underground science 2001: gram.html e.html International Workshop on Neutrino and Subterranean Science 2002 (NeSS 2002) NRC reports: Neutrino facilities Quarks to the Cosmos DOE NP Long Range Plan DOE Facilities for the Future ture.htm DOE HEP long-range plan and other reports EarthLab contact: Brian McPhearson OSTP report February

3 Useful Web Links (Individual Sites) Cascades Icicle Creek, WA contact: Wick Haxton John Wilkerson Henderson Mine, CO contact: Chang Kee Jung Bob Wilson Homestake Mine Project, SD also, contact: Kevin Lesko Willi Chinowsky Kimballton Mine, VA contact: R. Bruce Vogelaar Bob Bodnar Mt. San Jacinto, CA contact: Hank Sobel Bill Kropp Soudan Mine, MN contact: Marvin L. Marshak Earl A. Peterson The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Laboratory (SNOLAB), Creighton Mine, Ontario contact: Andrew Hime David Sinclair WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plan), NM contact: Roger Nelson Lloyd Piper Green Fields Report

4

5 Solicitation 1 Solicitation 1 Response will be submitted to NSF next week representing the whole community Unity behind extraordinary scientific opportunities Diversity of scientific goals and infrastructure requirements => modules with common infrastructure needs [which will] permit initiating laboratory without doing all the science at once (Turner 3/25/04) Focus and methodology + guarantees that process is fair PIs Gene Beier, U Penn (Particle Physics) Charles Fairhurst, U Minnesota (Engineering/Geology) Tullis Onstott, Princeton (Biogeology) Hamish Robertson, U Washington (Nuclear Physics) Bernard Sadoulet, UC Berkeley (Astrophysics) James Tiedje, Michigan State (Biology) Looking for approval by Dec, so that funds ~$0.5M can be used to generate full report Jun 2005 Summarize All Science at DUSEL Expect workshops during process! In the meantime => Help establish a common language for solicitation # 2 proposals Infrastructure matrix will be made known Oct 04 so sites benefit Help with common language / parameters

6 Solicitation 2 Expect 8 sites to make submissions Cascades Icicle Creek San Jacinto Homestake Was a fast solution, but time table has slowed down - Water is only major issue for biologists, ~1 km from flood area (virgin rock) Henderson Soudan WIPP Kimbleton SNOLab Note: Possibility of multiple laboratory sites,including international sites (Turner 3/25/04) Formal NSF Solicitation will be be out shortly Sites to respond by Dec 04 or possibly Jan 05 deadline

7 Future Outcome NSF reopened study - motivated by desire to level paying field - strong interest Geo - careful to talk about multiple sites e.g. Icicle as deep / with Henderson for large experiments e.g. Deep could be SNOLab, with large proton decay/neutrino in US (Geologist would like multiple sites) Main Study Report (50 pages) (from Sol #1) Will be submitted Jun 05 Down select of Solicitation 2 submissions Probably 1-3 sites announced Jun/Jul 05 Note timing of Study Report (when funded post Solicitation 1) and Site Solicitation is probably a little too parallel, but due to accelerated timescale Will depend on good communication during preparation Solicitation 3 during FY05 Planning grant to develop full proposal including suite of proposed experiments During FY06 Review and Decision to proceed through full NRC-style review and at the other end of the tunnel/shaft If pace is maintained NSF intends put lab costs in FY08 President's Budget Occupancy: 2010 (may be optimistic) 2012 OSTP - Office of the Science of The President Urging other agencies to take a role, but must clearly establish if there is enough science for big site

8 Themes Unity Go beyond natural rivalry between sites and propaganda develop common language of infrastructure requirements e.g. go beyond horizontal/vertical access and identify technical needs evaluate generic self consistent scenarios e.g. short distance-low energy /long distance for long baseline neutrinos 2 very different communities Particle, nuclear astro physicists Geologists, biologists, engineers understand differences and convergence Infrastructure requirements Main focus, technical requirement matrices Education and outreach Build in from the start Our common responsibility: not a specialized working group meeting in parallel

9 Working Groups used at Berkeley Meeting Broad Range of Scientists and Engineers now involved in potential proposal Working Groups Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay Long Baseline Working Group LBL Neutrino Beam to DUSEL Dark Matter Working Group Education and Outreach Geochemistry Working Group Geobiology Working Group Micro- and Molecular Biology Working Group Deep/low Working Group Large/Shallow Working Group Applications Working Group Geophysical Group Matrix Demand and Context Working Group Laboratory Layout Management Working Group Rock Mechanics and Seismic Working Group, C. Laughlin and S. Glasser

10 Modules - Common Requirements Small/clean as deep as possible Physics+Geo Generic Dark Matter, Double Beta, Solar Neutrino Deep biological observatory, deep geological experiments (virgin territory) Large: mostly physics but geo-monitoring Proton decay/long baseline neutrino Significant geo/rock mechanics instrumentation Large instrumented earth science volumes Systematic Km 3 instrumented sand boxes or feature target of opportunity (e.g. major fault or very fractured zone) Large scale geo/engineering experiments Interest for physicists?

11 EarthLAB Science & Engineering GeoBiology GeoChemistry GeoHydrology GeoMechanics GeoPhysics EarthLab: Derek Elsworth

12 See Presentation at Derek Elsworth