base grant status at nsf

Base Grant Status at NSF

J. Whitmore, Ani Aprahamian (PNA)F. Cooper (Theory)J. Kotcher (DUSEL)M. Pripstein (LHC)

M. Goldberg, *J. Reidy, +R. Ruchti (EPP)*After Oct 1 +Until Oct 17

Presentation for P5 at Fermilab, Sept 24-25, 2007

NSF EPP+ PNA Programs @ P5 Meeting, 24-25 Sept 2007 2

Topics

• NSF Budgets FY2003-08 (Request)• EPP Underlying Themes/Scope• PNA Program Scope/Highlights• Recommendations of UGPS• Possible Future Projects• Summary


House and Senate Action For FY08:Current status (from FYI #93, Sept 5, 2007):

FY2007 NSF budget: $5,917.2 MFor 2008, Bush Admin requested $6,429.0M, increase of 8.7%

SENATE Appropriations Committee (FYI#71,July 9):Sent to the floor a bill that would increase NSF by 10.8% to $6,553.4M

HOUSE (Details in FYI#78,July 24):Has passed a bill that would increase NSF by 10% to $6,509.0M:

The House Appropriations Committee report stated: “This level of funding will support the doubling of the NSF budget in 10 years as part of a long-term, sustained commitment to investment in basic research and

development which provides the foundation for innovation and future technologies.”


NSF Budget by Directorate

FY 2005 Actuals

FY 2006 Actuals

Change from

05 to 06FY 2007 Request

Change from


Change from

07 to 08BIO 576.78 $580.90 0.7% $607.85 4.6% $633.00 4.1%CISE 490.20 496.35 1.3% 526.69 6.1% 574.00 9.0%ENG 557.09 585.46 5.1% 628.55 7.4% 683.30 8.7%GEO 697.17 703.95 1.0% 744.85 5.8% 792.00 6.3%MPS 1,069.36 1,086.61 1.6% 1150.30 5.9% 1,253.00 8.9%SBE 196.80 201.23 2.3% 213.76 6.2% 222.00 3.9%OCI 123.40 127.14 3.0% 182.42 43.5% 200.00 9.6%OISE 43.38 42.61 -1.8% 40.61 -4.7% 45.00 10.8%OPP 348.53 390.54 12.1% 438.10 12.2% 464.90 6.1%OIA 130.92 233.30 78.2% 231.37 -0.8% 263.00 13.7%USARC 1.19 1.17 -1.7% 1.45 23.9% 1.49 2.8%

NSF R&RA 4234.82 4449.25 5.1% 4,765.95 7.1% 5,131.69 7.7%

(Dollars in Millions)


MPS Funding by Division

FY 2005 Actuals

FY 2006 Actuals

Change from


Change from


Change from

07 to 08AST 195.11 $199.75 2.4% $215.11 7.7% $232.97 8.3%CHE 179.26 180.70 0.8% 191.10 5.8% 210.54 10.2%DMR 240.09 242.59 1.0% 257.45 6.1% 282.59 9.8%DMS 200.24 199.52 -0.4% 205.74 3.1% 223.47 8.6%PHY 224.86 234.15 4.1% 248.50 6.1% 269.06 8.3%OMA 29.80 29.9 0.3% 32.40 8.4% 34.37 6.1%Total, MPS 1,069.36 1,086.61 1.6% 1,150.30 5.9% 1253.00 8.9%

R&RA 4234.82 4449.25 5.1% 4,765.95 7.1% 5,131.69 7.7%

NSF 5480.78 5645.79 3.0% 6,020.21 6.6% 6429.00 6.8%


MPS 10-Year Funding History

MPS Subactivity Funding(Dollars in Millions)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

AST CHE DMR DMS PHY OMA

Request

PHY


Physics Division FundingFY2003Actual

FY2004Actual

FY2005Actual

FY2006Actual

FY2007Actual

FY2008 Request

Percent change

Physics $224.92 $223.65 $222.23 $234.36 $249.06 $269.06 7.8%

Core Pgm

157.70 146.00 142.95 156.36 164.62* 187.15 13.3%

Facilities 67.22 77.65 79.28 78.00 84.46 81.91 -3.0%

LIGO 29.00 31.00 32.00 31.68 33.00 28.20 -14.5%

NSCL 15.65 15.65 17.50 17.34 18.50 19.50 5.4%

LHC 3.08 7.00 10.51 13.37 18.00 18.00 --

CESR 19.49 18.00 16.62 14.62 14.71 14.71 --

RSVP -- 6.00 2.65 0.99 -- -- --

IceCube -- -- -- --0.25# 1.50 500%*Centers, MRI, other = $33.8M

PI programs = $130.8M # +$1M from OPP


EPP + PNA Portfolio• University Program

– EPP Accelerator based physics• Hadron Colliders: CDF, DØ, CMS, ATLAS, LHCb• Electron Positron Colliders: CLEO-c, BaBar,…• Neutrinos: MINOS, NOVA, MINERvA, MiniBooNE

– Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics• Dark Matter: CDMS, COUPP, XENON10, DRIFT-II, ZEPLIN-II• UltraHigh Energy Universe: HiRes/TA, Pierre Auger, VERITAS,

MILAGRO• Neutrinos: Double Chooz, Super-K, Borexino, CUORE• Other

– Theory– Computational physics

• LHC Experiments: Maintenance and Operations• DUSEL and DUSEL R&D• CESR/CLEO-c• Accelerator and Detector R&D

– ILC Accelerator and Detector R&D– MICE– Advanced Technologies

• Partnerships & Broader Impacts


EPP+PNA Funding HistoryEPP+PNA Funding by Fiscal Year

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Fiscal Year

Fund

ing

Leve

l

Univ ProgramCESRLHC OPsLHC ConstrAccel & Det R&DRSVPPNA+IceCube OpsTheoryDUSEL


Base + Allied FundingFY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

Base

EPP 25.31 19.75 18.19 19.03 18.91

PNA+IceCube Ops 11.70 12.68 14.69 15.85 16.33

CESR 19.49 18.00 16.62 14.62 14.71

LHC OPS 3.08 7.00 10.51 13.65 18.00

Accel + ILC Det R&D 0.29 0.34 0.78 1.55 2.16

(RSVP)/DUSEL, R&D 0 (6.00) (2.65) (0.99) 6.00

EPP+Astro/Cosmo Thy 12.07 9.23 10.05 10.82 11.82

Total Base 71.93 73.00 73.50 76.24 87.94

EPP Allied Funding

MRI 1.70 0.00 0.75 1.66 1.05

PFC 4.00 5.02 5.56 5.77 5.93

OCI/CISE 6.30 6.50 5.65 3.63 1.61

PIF/OMA/ESIE/OISE 0.70 0.29 0.55 3.72 4.45

Total Allied 12.70 11.81 12.51 14.78 13.05

Overall Total 84.63 84.81 86.01 91.02 100.99

MREFC

LHC construction 9.69

IceCube 24.54 41.75 47.62 49.85 28.65


7%11%

3%

13%

20%

39%

7%QuarkNet*

CHEPREO

PIRE + Intl ILC

Tier 2c

PIF/GRIDs

PFC

MRI

EPPbase Other Sum

QuarkNet* 0.57 0.50 1.07CHEPREO 0.70 0.97 1.68PIRE + Intl

ILC 0.06 0.47 0.54Tier 2c 1.00 1.00 2.00PIF/GRIDs 0.00 3.12 3.12PFC 0.00 5.93 5.93MRI 0.00 1.05 1.05

Total 2.33 13.05 15.38

* QuarkNet also has a DOE/OHEP contribution of $0.75M

EPP(1): Allied Funding FY07


EPP(2): Underlying Themes• Empowering University-Based

Investigators• Adding Value

– Partnerships• Building Interdisciplinary Collaboration

– Broadening Participation• Single Investigators• Non-traditional/Underrepresented participants• Research at Undergraduate Institutions

– Education, Outreach and Broader Impacts


EPP(3): Partnerships• Cyberscience

– Tier 2c – with OCI– UltraLight – with OCI– OSG – with OCI and DOE

• Education with research– QuarkNet – with OMA, EHR and DOE/HEP– CHEPREO – with OMA, OCI, EHR, OISE– I2U2 – with OMA, EHR, PHY – Mariachi – OCI funded– CyberBridges – OCI funded– PIRE (UK,KSU,UNL,UIC, UPRM) – with OISE– ILC Outreach – with OISE


EPP(4): FY07 Funding Actions

85 Total Funding Actions

Mean of $237k based on 70 actions

2 Actions > $1M

13 small awards for conferences and workshops.0

5

10

15

20

250

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Funding Amount (k$)

Num

ber o

f Aw

ards


EPP(5): University SupportElem Part Accel User 2004 2005 2006 2007

1. Senior Personnel 101 97 107 119

1. Post Doctoral Associates 71 69 76 75

2. Other Professionals 29 27 28 193. Graduate Students 99 98 102 107

4. Undergraduate Students 28 26 23 26

5. Secretarial-Clerical 10 8 7 106. Other Personnel 16 8 7 5


EPP(6): Distribution of Univ Group FY05

Experiment ($k)

Tevatron 5,319LHC 5,697Neutrino 2,128DESY/CERN 1,368BNL/TJNAL 1,230CLEO (not Cornell) 1,474SLAC 504


PNA(1) Program FundingTopic FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

Dark Matter $1,338,986 $1,936,914

$2,314,089 $2,785,851

$3,595,864

$3,096,327

Cosmic Rays 1,896,668 3,372,659 3,181,361 3,387,193 4,302,715 4,014,807UHE Gamma

Rays2,475,414 3,323,542 4,257,015 3,730,292 2,886,059 3,063,731

IceCube 738,439 592,383 478,426 383,618 730,959 1,225,906Neutrinos, p

decay234,975 369,358 352,708 195,005 97,200 390,000

Solar neutrinos 1,295,189 1,177,688 996,336 1,250,000 1,460,000 1,603,000Double Beta

Decay137,900 0 32,858 319,990 320,000 749,016

Neutrino mass 0 0 4,903 51,289 57,887 107,207Dark Energy 0 0 0 0 0 132,000DUSEL R&D 0 0 0 0 0 3,110,720

Nucl. Astrophysics

855,644 855,643 825,000 730,000 730,000 770,000

AST/Cosmol/Conf.

832,954 261,482 241,834 1,856,352 1,672,002 928,002

Totals 9,806,169 11,889,669

12,684,530 14,689,590

15,852,686

19,190,716Note: all of these values include base group fundingFrom FY02 to FY07, increase by 64% (excl. DUSEL R&D)

I

II

III

IV


PNA funding by topic

Neutrinos3%

UHE Gamma Rays20%

Solar neutrinos11%

Nucl Astro5%

Neutrino mass1%

Double beta decay5%

Cosmic Rays26%

Dark Energy1%

IceCube8%

Dark Matter20%

Note: in $kNote: all of these values include base group funding

DM CR DE IceCube

Neutrino

UHE mass

Solar

NA DBD Total

3,096

4,015

132

1,226 390 3,064 107 1,603 770

749 16,080

PNA(2) Funding in FY07


PNA(3): Ultra-High Energy Universe

UHE NeutrinosIceCube

22 strings$$ NSF/….

UHE Cosmic RaysHiRes

S. AugerTA

UHE Gamma-RaysSTACEEVERITASMILAGRO

S.AUGER

17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.51E-38

1E-37

1E-36

1E-35

1E-34

1E-33

1E-32

1E-31

1E-30

1E-29

1E-28

1E-27

J (m

2 sr s

eV)

-1

log E (eV)

Auger Combined HiResI HiResII

Highlights from HiRes and Auger:

(From P. Mazur, 2007)$$ HiRes/TA - NSF

Auger – NSF/DOE/…



S.AUGER

Highlights from VERITAS:

Discovery of supernova remnant IC 443 as a very high-energy source. This is one of the “prototypical” SNRs, thought to be the origin of cosmic rays.

• Detection of TeV gamma-ray emission from microquasar LSI +61 303. Fascinating binary system with neutron star/BH and companion.

$$ VERITAS – NSF/DOE/…



S.AUGER

Highlights from MILAGRO:

• Signal (A) disappears when their cosmic-ray rejection is applied• MILAGRO notes it is a charged particle shower and not

single high energy gamma rays hitting the pond• Signal (A) maintains significance when energy cut is raised

• (Expected 7; observed 13) => hard energy spectrum• Anisotropy due to hard (<2.6) spectrum cosmic rays: WHAT

IS IT?

MGRO J1908 +06

(RA = 70, Dec = 15)

$$ MILAGRO – NSF/DOE

•These are probably the highest energy gamma rays detected > 100 TeV (1014 eV)•Indicative of a hard spectrum (2.05) of gamma rays up to 100 TeV


PNA(6): Neutrinos• Highlights from Borexino

300 tons of pseudocumene-based scintillator – 100 tons fiducial volume

Observe: the first real-time spectral measurement of sub-MeV solar neutrinos from 7Be; the result (47±7±12 cts/day per 100 tons) is consistent with predictions of the Standard Solar Models and neutrino oscillations with the LMA-MSW parameters:

2 MeV800 keV$$ Borexino – NSF/INFN/..

(49±4 with osc./75±4 no osc.)


PNA(7): 0

• With DOE-ONP; NSF will fund the electronics for CUORE – presently in the CD-1 approval process

• NSF has a small involvement with NEMO-3 and EXO

(From S. Katsanevas, TAUP2007)

• NuSAG (Sept 1, 2005): “The following three experiments, listed in alphabetical order, have the highest priority for funding: CUORE, EXO, Majorana.” For Super-NEMO, “Support is not a priority.”


UGPS(1)• The primary recommendation is • (1) $$ The University Grants Program must be

strengthened in order to achieve the goals of the national high energy physics program, as articulated by EPP2010. This requires increased investment and careful attention to building and sustaining levels of personnel and infrastructure necessary for successful university research groups.

• I note that 11 of the 15 recommendations involve a request for more $$

• I note that as far as I can tell no priority to them• PHY has a strategic portfolio balance established

in consultation with the community through discussions with our COV every three years that no less than 50% of the Divisional funds will be devoted to PI support (< 10% to centers, ~35% to facility OPS, as shown in slide on PHY funding)


UGPS(2)• 2) $$ A higher priority in the overall HEP program should be given to

funding directed at university-based theoretical particle physics for the purpose of increasing the number of grant-supported graduate students. Support for students and postdocs doing calculations related to upcoming experiments is particularly urgent.

• The NSF has been addressing this issue long before the UGPS report:

• Fred Cooper has been working with the phenomenology community to organize and figure out the best way to prepare for the LHC... this started around 3 years ago at the 2004 DPF meeting!

• The present LHC initiative group started organizing at the Madison Phenomenology Meeting in May 2005.

• Special funding for students and post-docs was initiated through the LHC Theory initiative:

• The funding profile planned is:• FY 2007 $100K (thru’ supplement to JHU)• FY 2008 $250K (50% from OMA)• FY 2009 $450K• FY 2010 $500K• This funding will also be augmented as allowed by the Physics

funding profile increases to allow for more funding for proposals in the area of phenomenology.


UGPS(3)• (3) $$ Group sizes should be sustained, and increased where

appropriate and supported by peer review. The agencies should make a special effort to support long-term research scientists as an integral part of this group structure, particularly when they provide expertise essential to the experimental program or leadership at a remote laboratory.

• All proposals to NSF are MERIT-reviewed• Group sizes are decreased or increased where appropriate and

supported by merit-review• Funds are allocated to a PI and can be (mostly) spent as they see

fit• Issue with long–term research scientists on “soft” money is a

concern for their future – up to the PI to make this decision; this issue is evaluated carefully in the merit-review process

• (4) $$ University-based technical development should be funded at a level commensurate with its great importance. The investment should be adequate to provide the necessary equipment and technical and engineering support.

• All proposals to the NSF are merit reviewed, and most are also discussed, compared and prioritized by a peer-composed panel each year. We believe that this does enable us to fund each university group at the “appropriate level”, consistent with the overall funding levels of the agency.


UGPS(4)• (5) As much as possible, universities should be funded through merit-

based peer-reviewed proposals, rather than through specific project-based funds.

• Nearly all proposals to the NSF are merit reviewed (the exceptions being Workshop proposals, supplements, creative extensions and SGER, Small Grants for Exploratory Research), as they have been since the NSF was founded

• These same proposals are also discussed, compared and prioritized by a peer-composed panel each year

• The larger requests are now reviewed by a site visit panel of 3-4 external peer reviewers

• Note the next recommendation says that “Project managers should utilize university resources”; are these recommendations completely consistent?

• (6) $$ The agencies should support university technical infrastructure, including hardware development, through grants. In addition, project managers should utilize university resources which are economical and effective, and they should report on this optimization at major project reviews.

• See comments on previous recommendation• We provide extensive funds to the various projects (eg ATLAS/CMS,

AUGER, VERITAS, IceCube to name a few). It is the responsibility of the managers to allocate the funds as they see fit. We should not be micro-managing them; however, we do have major reviews of these projects as part of our oversight responsibilities: from the ATLAS RP through FY06, $42M went to labs, $25M to universities

• For the LHC this year (FY07), the earlier slides (#9-10) show a 34.7% increase


UGPS(5)• Three recommendations directly address issues that arise from overseas

operations:• (7) The agencies should continue their efforts to ensure that the vision

for LHC computing is realized. This includes working across and within agencies to ensure sufficient network and computing capacity.

• The agencies do appreciate these two issues and we are working with US ATLAS and US CMS to encourage them to set up their internal committees to make recommendations of this issue; a US LHC committee is being convened

• Additionally, Open Science Grid is being supported strongly by both NSF and DOE – LHC benefits as well as other sciences

• (8) $$ The agencies should support the increased travel and subsistence costs of university researchers participating in the LHC and other overseas experiments.

• We merit-review all proposals, including the PI’s request for travel funds • These same proposals are also discussed, compared and prioritized by a

peer-composed panel each year• The larger requests are now reviewed by a site visit panel of 3-4

external reviewers• This year, FY07, we have started having reverse site visits, with a peer-

composed external panel, to specifically look at the LHC contributions in each proposal

• (9) $$ The agencies should support efforts to ensure that both U.S. sites and key sites abroad are equipped with remote videoconferencing systems that are reliable, robust, and readily available.

• The agencies do appreciate this issue and we are working with US ATLAS and US CMS to encourage them to set up their internal committees to make recommendations of this issue (see above)


UGPS(6)• (10) The Scientific Assessment Groups (SAGs) should regularize their

role in reviewing projects.• o Each SAG should actively monitor and prioritize the experiments and

R&D in its area. It should evaluate both physics goals and technical design.

• o The SAGs should report to P5, timing their reports so that they are available to

• P5 when needed.• o The SAGs should review all experiments with expected construction

costs above $5M, along with smaller ones seeking review. This includes both experiments that are affiliated with a U.S. laboratory and those that are not. Additional SAGs should be created as needed to cover all areas (taking care to avoid proliferation).

• o HEPAP should establish mechanisms for prioritizing experiments whose cost is above $5M but below the P5 threshold. The prioritization process should take advantage of input from the SAGs and should reflect the breadth of the field.

• In PNA, we have already announced (see program description on the NSF web page) that for larger requests (ie above $1M) at the program officer’s discretion, the proposal will be subjected to a cost review, including scientific goals, and examining the degree to which the proposed project can achieve these goals

• (11) $$ The University Grants Program should fund the development and mounting of small and mid-scale university-based experiments that are highly rated by peer review and, where appropriate, by the SAGs and P5. This may require supplements to the University Grants Program.

• MRI• APPI


UGPS(7)• (12) A University Grants Program Committee (UGPC) should be

formed to consult with University Grants Program managers of both agencies on the issues facing the University Grants Program. The chair of this committee should be chosen cooperatively by both agencies and by the chairs of the HEPAP, DPF, DAP, and DPB and should serve as a spokesperson for the university community.

• We are discussing between the agencies how to implement this; needs a careful charge; note: 14 of the 23 members of HEPAP are Univ.

• (13) We applaud the COV process and endorse its continuation. Among the issues that future COVs should address are:

• o Mechanisms for the consistent review of lab- and university-based researchers

• o The competitive review of proposals, through panels or other means, within the University Grants Program

• o The workload of University Grants Program staff• o Implementation of a DOE database comparable to the one

used by NSF that makes institutional, funding, demographic, and programmatic information readily available

• The NSF has been using the COV process for many years (at least 20) and it does consider the first three points noted above


UGPS(8)• (14) $$ Additional support should be made available to

enable undergraduates and high school teachers to participate in experiments offshore. In addition, support should be continued for an REU program at CERN, following discussion of its structure with representatives of interested university groups.

• NSF and DOE provide funds for QuarkNet to work with teachers and undergraduates

• The REU-site and RET programs accept proposals which are then merit reviewed

• (15) $$ The agencies should foster outreach by, for example, funding new positions dedicated to facilitating and coordinating university outreach efforts.

• We have increased the funding for QuarkNet over the last several years

• We have provided funds to many projects, many of which have staff funded, either through university funds or through NSF grant funds, to work on Broader Impacts and E&O

• Some examples are I2U2, CHEPREO, ASPIRE, LIGO, IceCube, Cornell U, VERITAS

• We provide value-added though working with DOE and others at NSF


Future PNA Projects• 3 Projects have been ended in 2006-7:

– HiRes, STACEE and MILAGRO • → TA/(LE), VERITAS, (HAWC)

• Dark Matter: – DEAP/CLEAN– LUX

• UHE Cosmic Rays: – TALE – N. AUGER

• UHE Gamma-Rays: – HAWC– AGIS

• Neutrino-less Double Beta Decay: MAJORANA

• DUSEL activities


Summary• We have a vested interest in University Groups

– PI support > 50% in PHY• NSF has a successful history of partnerships

with DOE/OHEP and DOE/ONP• NSF vision of partnerships for the Future

• ILC: DOE is lead, with NSF in supporting role• DUSEL: NSF is lead, with DOE in supporting role

• We take advice from the community seriously (Merit and Panel reviews)

• Merit review is a cornerstone of our decision process.

• “We respond to proposals”


The BIG Picture

(From S. Katsanevas, TAUP2007)

Additional Slides


DEAP I7 kg LAr2 warm PMTsSNOLab 2007

Micro-CLEAN4 kg LAr and LNe 2 cold PMTssurface tests at Yale

Mini-CLEAN 360360 kg LAr/LNe (100 kg fiducial mass)80 cold PMTsunderground DUSEL or SNOLab late 2008DEAP/CLEAN 36003600 kg LAr/LNe (1000 kg fiducial mass)266 cold PMTs*underground at SNOLab late 2008

DEAP 0initial R&D detector

Pico-CLEANinitial R&D detector

10-100 ton LNe Detectorpp solar , supernova, dark matter 10-46 cm2

proposals ~ 2011

topics of this meeting

10-44 cm2

10-45 cm2

10-46 cm2

WIMP sensitivity

DARK MATTER: DEAP/CLEAN

$960k

$5,824k

• Single phase LAr/LNe


FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY20111Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4QOct'06 Jan'07 Apr'07 Jul'07 Oct'07 Jan'08 Apr'08 Jul'08 Oct'08 Jan'09 Apr'09 Jul'09 Oct'09 Jan'10 Apr'10 Jul'10 Oct'11 Jan'11 Apr'11 Jul'11

DEAP1/Micro-CLEAN operation

Mini-CLEAN 360 proposals/review construction operation

DEAP/CLEAN 3600 engineering and R&Dproposals/reviewCDR TDR

SNOLab FacilitiesDetector const'n

operation

100 ton Detector R&D proposals/review

Timelines for DEAP/CLEAN Project

2nd DMSAGReview

DUSEL EIP

DARK MATTER: DEAP/CLEAN


UHE Cosmic Rays: TALE• TALE: Telescope Array Low energy Extension

• Target energy range is 1017-19 eV• With a SD infill array• And tower FD (for higher altitude)

• Goal: to study the primary CR composition in the low energy region


UHE Cosmic Rays: N. AUGER

• Chosen site is SE Colorado, initial area is 4,000 sq miles (10,370 km2), 3.3 times SPAO

• Same latitude and elevation as SPAO• Possible for future expansion• SD located on a square-mile grid covering a 84x48

mile area• FD would be split into 3 half-eyes, in order to

maximize the number of hybrid events• # PMTs/tank will be reduced from 3 to 1

• Requesting Construction starting in 2009, completion in 2012• Expecting to submit an R&D proposal in Fall 2007

• Comments taken from D. Nitz, ICRC2007/arXiv:0706.3940v1


UHE -rays: HAWC• High Altitude Water Cherenkov detector• 4100 m above sea level• At Sierra Negra, MX• Est. ~$6M total• 15x Milagro sensitivity• Expecting a proposal in September,

2007

•VERITAS, HESS, MAGIC, Whipple sensitivity in 50 hours, (~0.2 sr/yr)

•GLAST sensitivity in 1 year (4 sr)•HAWC, Milagro, sensitivity in 1

year (2 sr)


UHE -rays: AGIS• AGIS: Advanced Gamma-ray Imaging System• U.S. (AGIS) and European groups (CTA) are currently in the

planning stages for a next generation gamma-ray experiment (50-100 ACTs)

• With 1 km2 effective area, 10% energy resolution, arcmin angular resolution, and energy thresholds as low as 40 GeV.

• Such instruments could achieve sensitivities of 10-13 down to 10-10 erg cm-2 sec-1 at 200 GeV; energy range from GLAST up to 50 TeV

Open to new technologies.• Submit joint R&D proposal (~$6M) to NSF/DOE by 9/26/07• Aiming at ~$100M level project ($1M/telescope)• New technologies required to reduce cost• Managing institutions:• Univ. of Chicago (NSF) and ANL (DOE).• SLAC plan to participate in camera development.CTA ~ $100-$200M


Doub

le B

eta

Deca

y Ex

pts

Experiments Isotopes Techniques Main caracteristics

NEMO3 100Mo,82Se Tracking + calorimeter

Bckg rejection, isotope choice

SuperNEMO

82Se, 150Nd Tracking + calorimeter

Bckg rejection, isotope choice

Cuoricino 130Te Bolometers Energy resolution, efficiency

CUORE 130Te Bolometers Energy resolution, efficiency

GERDA 76Ge Ge diodes Energy resolution, eficiency

Majorana 76Ge Ge diodes Energy resolution, efficiency

COBRA 130Te, 116Cd ZnCdTe semi-conductors

Energy resolution, efficiency

EXO 136Xe TPC ionisation + scintillation

Mass, efficiency, final state signature

MOON 100Mo Tracking + calorimeter

Compactness, Bckg rejection

CANDLES 48Ca CaF2 scintillating crystals

Efficiency, Background

SNO++ 150Nd Nd loaded liquid scintillator

Mass, efficiency

XMASS 136Xe Liquid Xe Mass, efficiencyCARVEL

48CaCaWO4 scintillating crystals

Mass, efficiency

Yangyang 124Sn Sn loaded liquid scintillator

Mass, efficiency

DCBA 150Nd Gazeous TPC Bckg rejection, efficiency


Sum

mar

y of

DM

Pr

ojec

ts

(From P. Belli, TAUP2007)


High Energy Gamma-Rays

(From Hofmann, TAUP2007/Hinton ICRC2007)


High Energy Gamma-Rays: MILAGRO

• Milagro has discovered 3 new & 4 candidate sources in the Galaxy. • 5/7 of these TeV sources have GeV counterparts (only 13 GeV counterparts in this region - excluding Crab) J and C


UHE Neutrinos: IceCube

• The main goal of the experiment is to detect neutrinos in the energy range from 1011 eV to about 1021 eV.

• The sources of neutrinos coming "up" from below could be black holes, GRBs, or supernova remnants.

• The IceCube In-Ice detector will consist of a minimum of 4200 DOMs (optical modules) deployed on 70 vertical strings buried 1450 to 2450 meters under the surface of the ice, and an IceTop surface air-shower detector array comprised of a minimum of 280 optical modules.


Neutrino properties: Double Chooz

• The Double Chooz experiment goal is to search for a non-vanishing value of the θ13 neutrino mixing angle. This is the last step to accomplish prior moving towards a new era of precision measurements in the lepton sector.

• Double Chooz will use two identical detectors, one at 300 m and another at 1.05 km distance from the Chooz nuclear cores.

• The plan is to start operation in 2007 with one detector and to have both detectors operating by the end of 2008. In this scenario, Double Chooz will reach a sin2(2θ13) sensitivity of 0.07 after 1 year with 1 detector, and 0.03-0.02 after 3 years of operation with both detectors.

• NSF will fund outer muon shield veto $2.3M


Neutrino-less Double Beta Decay: CUORE• With DOE-NP, Spain, and INFN in LNGS• NSF will help fund the electronics ~$1.3M• Cryogenic bolometer of 988, 750 g-TeO2 crystals• Effective mass of 200 kg of 130Te w/o enrichment

• Will search for 0 with sensitivity to well below 100 meV in the effective Majorana mass or, in the “inverted hierarchy,” can prove is a Dirac particle by putting stringent limits on the 0 lifetime.

• Start data-taking in 2011, reaching T1/2 = 2.1x1026 yr in 5 years, corresponding to <m> = 19-100 meV, depending on nuclear matrix elements


Acronyms - IAP Physics Advanced Placement Physics (for High School Students)APPI Accelerator Physics and Physics InstrumentationAST Astronomy DivisionCHE Chemistry DivisionCHEPREO Center for High Energy Physics Research and Education OutreachCI-TEAM CyberInfrastructure Training Education Advancement and Mentoring COV Committee of VisitorsCyberBridges Grid Computing and Science Disciplines Interdisciplinary Research and EducationDDDAS Dynamically Data Driven Applications SystemsDMR Division of Materials ResearchDMS Division of Mathematical SciencesDUSEL Deep Underground Scientific LaboratoryEHR Education and Human Resources DirectorateEPP Elementary Particle PhysicsESIE Elementary, Secondary and Informal EducationGK12 Graduate Teaching Fellows in K12 EducationGOALI Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with IndustryI2U2 Interactions in Understanding the Universe (Research and Formal and Informal Education Program)IPSE Internships in Public Science EducationMariachi Mixed Apparatus for Radar Investigation of Cosmic-rays of High IonizationMPS Mathematical and Physical Sciences DirectorateMREFC Major Reseach Equipment and Facilities ConstructionMRI Major Research Instrumentation


Acronyms - II

base grant status at nsf

Documents

fy2007 nsf budget

level of funding

sheet2sheet3mps funding

senate action

current status

1c8 rra4234

base grant status

directorate sheet1dollars