Planning for the Future of RHIC

1
Planning for the Future of RHIC
RHIC II Science Workshop 2 April 29-30,
2005 Brookhaven National Laboratory Sam Aronson
2
These are the interesting times in the ancient
curse

• Past Present
• Fiscal outlook
• Charge to NSAC
• Whats happening now?
• In this context, what should we be doing to plan
  for the future of RHIC?

3
Past and Present

• RHICs 1st 5 years Unparalleled (in NP, surely)
  success in terms of
• Performance
• Scientific impact
• Educational impact
• Public attention
• Future prospects

4
RHIC in the context of Nuclear Physics, Science
and Society

• Tremendous scientific impact 105 experimental
  papers gt5000 citations, and a comparable body of
  theory papers
• RHIC is an outstanding educator of nuclear
  physicists
• The four RHIC experiments have produced 98 Ph.D.
  students (51 US). The rate of Ph.D. production
  is still increasing
• According to the NSAC Report Education in
  Nuclear Science,
• RHI is the largest of 10 Current Research Areas
  for all demographic groups in Nuclear Science
  (men, women, US Ph.D.s, US citizens, etc.)
• RHI is the research area where the largest cohort
  of current post docs in Nuclear Science got their
  Ph.D.s
• 10 OJI and PECASE awards to junior RHIC
  scientists

600 newspaper and magazine stories to date
5
Whats the Problem?

• Budget outlook is the problem
• NOT peculiar to RHIC!
• FY2006 Budget guidance
• Run 6 would be reduced to 12 weeks
  (compare to Run 5s 31 weeks)
  This requires a reduction in force as well
• In such scenarios we think about combining 2
  years running into one more efficient run
• Political activity to restore running time next
  year and there is cause for optimism

• Some good news favorable renegotiation of the
  cost of electric power will improve Run 6 (and
  beyond)

6
DOE Nuclear Physics and NSAC

• The real concern is the out years
  Office of Nuclear Physics is told to plan for a
  worst case of flat-flat funding for 5 more years
• Dennis Kovar told NSAC at the March 11 meeting
  that he cannot run his whole program (including
  both RHIC and CEBAF) through 5 years of
  flat-flat funding
• 100M deficit foreseen
• Dennis charged NSAC to advise on
• How to implement the recommendations of the 2002
  Long Range Plan in view of these projections
• By June (!!) in order to inform the process of
  putting together the FY2007 budget

7
The Charge to NSAC
Chaired by Robert Tribble (TAMU), the
Subcommittee consists of Ani Aprahamian, Univ.
Notre Dame Peter D. Barnes, LANL Gordon Cates,
Univ. Virginia Donald F. Geesaman, ANL Charles
Glashausser, Rutgers Univ. Edward Hartouni, LLNL
David Hertzog, Univ. Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Xiangdong Ji, Univ. Maryland Gail McLaughlin,
North Carolina State Univ. Curtis Meyer,
Carnegie Mellon Univ. Alice Mignerey, Univ.
Maryland Richard Milner, MIT Berndt Mueller,
Duke Univ. Witold Nazarewicz, Univ. Tennessee
Michael Ramsey-Musolf, California Inst.
Technology Hamish Robertson, Univ. Washington
Bradley Sherrill, Michigan State Univ. Michael
Smith, ORNL James Symons, LBNL Steve Vigdor,
Indiana Univ. Bill Zajc, Columbia Univ.

• An NSAC subcommittee chaired by Bob Tribble
  (TAMU), was created to answer this charge take
  a look at their website http//usnuclearscience.o
  rg
• On April 3-5 the subcommittee took input from
  CEBAF, RHIC and other components of the field

8

• 3 budget scenarios
• Responses (reverse order)
• Optimized program is 31 cryo-weeks/year and
  includes upgrades
• Constant effort funding starting with the
  Presidents budget in FY 2006 ?
• Running across fiscal year boundaries (run every
  other year)
• Limited investments in the future (upgrades slow
  down)
• Reduced operations staff (40 FTEs in response to
  the 2006 Presidents budget)
• Flat-flat funding at the FY 2006 Presidents
  budget level would effectively end the program in
  5 years

9

• A team of RHIC advocates including BNL, non-BNL,
  experimenters, theorists and managers made
  presentations
• By all accounts, this went extremely well with
  the subcommittee
• Slam-dunk science case (well hear some of these
  talks today)
• Realistic assessment of the consequences of grave
  budgets
• See presentations http//www.bnl.gov/henp/nsac040
  5.asp

10
What has happened lately and whats next?

• RHIC received questions from the RHIC and Heavy
  Ion Physics Focus Team within the Tribble
  subcommittee
• Peter Barnes ? Berndt Mueller ? Bill
  Zajc
• Richard Milner ? Steve Vigdor
• These questions provided a good opportunity to
  provide the subcommittee with further details
• Tom Ludlam paraphrased some in the white paper
  outline he circulated before this meeting
• The DNP Business Meeting in Tampa provided for
  community input on the process
• The Tribble Subcommittee will meet in camera May
  4-6 and presumably emerge with a draft report
  which will be presented to NSAC in June

11
What should we do?

• You could argue we should hold our collective
  breath until this drama plays out
• I dont think so
• I hope the subcommittee resists the directive to
  prioritize the facilities
• Even if they do so, I am confident RHIC will do
  very well in this prioritization
• No matter how you spin it, the Tribble
  subcommittee is effectively rewriting the last
  Long Range Plan
• This makes the timing of the next Long Range Plan
  somewhat uncertain
• The next Long Range Plan, whenever it is put
  together, must support the case for the future of
  the RHIC program
• Our job is to make that case and we should get on
  with it
• Im looking forward to this workshop (and the
  next at the Users Meeting) showing good progress
  toward consolidating and sharpening the physics
  case for the next phase of the RHIC program