Presentation to the HEPAP Subpanel on the University Grants Progam

Document Sample
Presentation to the HEPAP Subpanel on the University Grants Progam Powered By Docstoc
					          Presentation to the HEPAP
    Subpanel on the University Grants Progam

                            Robert P. Johnson
                    University of California at Santa Cruz
                   Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics

December 8, 2007                  R.P. Johnson                 1
                         GLAST Mission
   GLAST Gamma-Ray Observatory:
   •   LAT ~20 MeV and up
   •   GBM 20 keV to 20 MeV
   •   Spacecraft bus



                          spacecraft partner:
                          (General Dynamics)

December 8, 2007                    R.P. Johnson   2
                       GLAST LAT Collaboration
United States
•     California State University at Sonoma
•     University of California at Santa Cruz - Santa Cruz Institute of Particle Physics
•     Goddard Space Flight Center – Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics
•     Naval Research Laboratory
•     Ohio State University
•     Stanford University (SLAC and HEPL/Physics)
•     University of Washington
•     Washington University, St. Louis
•     IN2P3, CEA/Saclay                                Only 2 DOE supported
Italy                                                  university groups, and no
•     INFN, ASI                                        NSF support.
•     Hiroshima University
•     Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
•     Stockholm University
    December 8, 2007                   R.P. Johnson                                  3
               UCSC/SCIPP Particle-Astro
• Don Coyne’s NSF group, now headed by David Williams:
     –   Cygnus air shower array at Los Alamos
     –   Milagro air-shower water-Čerenkov detector near Los Alamos
     –   STACEE Čerenkov telescope
     –   Veritas Čerenkov telescope array: so far not successful in securing
         significant NSF funding for participation in this project.
• SCIPP Astrophysics Initiative: University commitment to fund 4 new
  faculty positions in this area.
   – David Smith: balloon and space-based x-ray detectors
     – Anthony Aguirre: theory, especially cosmology
     – New faculty search in progress
        • The remaining two new positions may be filled this winter.
• R. Johnson’s GLAST group:
     – Faculty: Atwood and Johnson, plus participation in hardware and
       software by Sadrozinski and Schalk.
     – Two postdocs and 3 graduate students.
December 8, 2007                    R.P. Johnson                               4
                        GLAST Tracker
• UCSC effort started by Johnson in 1994.
    – Prototypes for beamtests in 1997 and 1999, built primarily at UCSC
    – Flight Tracker design and fabrication led by Johnson as subsystem
      manager; Background rejection and simulation led by Atwood.
    – Readout electronics design and fabrication led by UCSC

• UCSC hardware work was
  supported by DOE funds
  redirected by SLAC.
• 1 postdoc, 1 student, and 2
  faculty summer salaries are
  now supported on the DOE
• Atwood, 2nd postdoc, and
  other students are supported
  by NASA funds obtained
  through Stanford.

December 8, 2007                 R.P. Johnson                              5
 Transition from Accelerator-Based Work
• Johnson previously worked on the BaBar SVT electronics (which
  was the starting point of the LAT Tracker electronics design).
• His GLAST involvement represented a unique and new path within
  the DOE supported SCIPP group.
   – Initial work was done primarily with NASA development funds.
   – A GLAST postdoc was requested from DOE for many years and
      finally received about halfway through the instrument fabrication.
   – Johnson had to rely on fabrication funding from SLAC to
      maintain the group through most of the program
        • This was not completely appropriate for postdocs, who
          ideally should be spending some time on science.
        • The Tracker fabrication was completed more than a year
          ago, ending the flow of fabrication funds.

December 8, 2007               R.P. Johnson                            6
            UCSC GLAST Group Funding
• Our NASA funding currently is for the Phase-C/D part of the mission
• Phase-E funding (post-launch) is only approved at a level that will
  support about 80% of Atwood and one student.
• Michelson has had a Phase-E proposal into NASA for a long time, in
  part to increase the UCSC support, to provide a postdoc and two
     – This has become greatly complicated by large Phase-E increases
       requested by SLAC in the same proposal.
     – NASA rejected the proposal in the first go-around because they could
       not understand the SLAC costs.
• We have also tried to request a 2nd postdoc from DOE instead, but
  that is going nowhere because of the continuing resolution.
• Consequently, our group has no assurance of adequate manpower
  to exploit GLAST post-launch (this October), after working
  intensively on the hardware and software for more than a decade.
December 8, 2007                  R.P. Johnson                                7
                   OSU GLAST Group
• Two faculty: R. Hughes and B. Winer.
• Relative latecomers to the LAT collaboration, but they have made
  important contributions, particularly to the trigger.
   – They indicated that the DOE was initially skeptical of their plan
     but has since recognized the importance of their contributions.
• There were some funding difficulties in transitioning from
  accelerator-based projects to GLAST:
   – They were denied all requests for a transition “bump” in funding,
     to allow a quick ramp-up in LAT work (i.e. hiring a GLAST
     postdoc and/or student) while maintaining existing commitments,
     including 2 postdocs who had been hired to work on accelerator
   – Currently the group is still about 50/50 accelerator/astro.

December 8, 2007              R.P. Johnson                           8
                     NSF and GLAST
• An unsuccessful attempt was made in the early years of GLAST by
  several NSF groups to secure NSF support for the program (prior to
  the final NASA award of the LAT to our collaboration).
• The GLAST University of Washington group (Toby Burnett, et al.)
  has been instrumental from the beginning in the LAT-program
  software development.
   – They participated in the unsuccessful proposal mentioned
   – NSF has thus far not been interested in funding them (or
      anybody else) on GLAST.
   – Their efforts are largely supported by NASA funds directed to
      them through Stanford University.

December 8, 2007             R.P. Johnson                              9
                   More General Concerns
• Flat or declining funding of the University Program over the past
  decade has made it difficult for new groups (such as the OSU group)
  to start up and for individuals in existing groups to go in new
• Similarly, there has been a decline in infrastructure in most
   – The existing infrastructure at UCSC, especially from previous
      programs in SSD-based systems, was critical in the success of
      GLAST. We used it heavily in the 1990’s to demonstrate the
      LAT concept and ultimately to win the NASA award.
   – That infrastructure definitely has declined since then, both in
      terms of technical staff and up-to-date equipment.
   – Sadrozinski’s suggestion: award infrastructure support to be
      shared among R&D consortia. A very good example was the
      SSC research organization.

December 8, 2007              R.P. Johnson                         10
• Two DOE-supported university groups have been successful in
  making major, project-enabling contributions to the fabrication of the
  LAT instrument.
• Support to the university groups for scientific exploitation of GLAST
  remains uncertain.

December 8, 2007               R.P. Johnson                            11
         GLAST Science Opportunities
•   Active Galactic Nuclei
•   Extra-galactic Background Light (EBL)
•   Isotropic Diffuse Background Radiation
•   Endpoints of Stellar Evolution
     – Neutron Stars/Pulsars
     – Black Holes
•   Cosmic Ray Production:
     – Identify sites and mechanisms
•   Gamma-Ray Bursts
•   Solar Physics
     – Identifying known sources
     – New classes of -ray sources?
     – Dark Matter (WIMPs)?
     – New cosmological relics?
     – Dispersion in vacuum?
December 8, 2007                       R.P. Johnson   12