stfc accelerator review · stfc accelerator review ... encourage closer interaction between linear...
TRANSCRIPT
Executive Summary • Accelerator science central to
STFC
• Field in UK has grown rapidly over
past decade
• Focused review of accelerator
science was recommended by
2013 Programmatic Review
• Ad hoc panel of accelerator
experts and facility users formed
– NB not constituted for peer-review
– ranking / grading of projects not
performed
• Input sought from wide variety of
stake-holders – pro-forma
submission and effort summary
tables
Executive Summary • Report to enable SB to develop high
level strategy and to guide ASB as it
develops more detailed strategy and
prioritised roadmap
• Report organised by science area
under sub-headings: factual
overview, findings, comments &
recommendations
• Key observations:
– Internationally leading programme
has developed over past 10 years –
community to be congratulated
– Broad programme with different
portfolios in different groups
– Collaboration should be encouraged
– Broad range of applications – more
prominence must be given to this
aspect
Terms of Reference Review seeks to provide a narrative and commentary on the
following aspects of the accelerator programme:
– The current organisation and delivery of the programme;
– Details of individual projects and programmes;
– Areas of intrinsic excellence and global recognition;
– Cost effectiveness and value for money;
– Cross-cutting areas, and any gaps or overlaps;
– Links with appropriate universities and facilities;
– Areas of synergy, including with laser-related activities;
– Leadership and the key positions in international
collaborations;
– Areas of added value, including technologies and industry;
– Areas and opportunities for future engagement, providing the
UK with access to national and international facilities and
cutting edge technology.
Review Panel Membership
• Prof Dan Tovey - University of Sheffield (Chair)
• Dr Rob Appleby – University of Manchester
• Prof Riccardo Bartolini – John Adam Institute, DLS
• Dr Oliver Bruning - CERN
• Prof Jim Clarke – STFC ASTeC
• Mr Jonathan Flint – Oxford Instruments
• Prof Sue Kilcoyne – University of Huddersfield
• Dr John Thomason – STFC ISIS Accelerator Group
Report Structure
• Governance
• Neutron sources
• Synchrotron light sources
• Free electron lasers
• High energy lepton machines
• High energy hadron machines
• Novel and plasma accelerators
• Underpinning technologies
• Global challenges and Impact
• Optimal accelerator programme
Governance 1. The accelerator institutes should be encouraged to develop further their own
unique research identities. This aspect of the institutes should be considered
carefully during the next round of funding reviews in 2016.
2. The accelerator institutes, ASTeC, UK facilities and university groups should
be encouraged to collaborate further and coordinate closely to deliver the
skills and technologies required by STFC-funded accelerator projects.
3. The development of formal management structures and associated oversight
for larger-scale and capital-phase projects as set out in STFC’s Project
Management Framework should be enforced.
4. STFC should ensure that it maintains, through input and advice from ASB, a
high-level strategic oversight of the entirety of the accelerator R&D
programme, its content and balance, including that of the accelerator institutes
and ASTeC, to ensure coherence and value for money of the activities it
supports.
5. This strategic oversight should also include an awareness of the international
context and information from non-STFC funded projects, as and when
appropriate.
Governance
6. STFC should consider whether the oversight mechanism for the Institutes and
the laboratory departments should be updated to take account of occasions
when core funding is used to support what would normally be considered to
be ‘new projects’ such as the detailed design, construction and/or operation of
specific accelerator facilities for physics exploitation or major upgrades to
existing facilities. This recommendation is not intended to cover lower level,
on-going activities (such as maintenance and minor upgrades) at facilities,
which should continue to be monitored according to current practice.
7. When reviewing particle physics or nuclear physics projects with substantial
accelerator science components, the PPRP should seek advice from
accelerator experts, and should continue to ensure that such activities are
considered fairly alongside other work-packages.
8. STFC should set up an Accelerator PRD (APRD) scheme, administered by ASB,
to support small-scale accelerator R&D activities in any area of accelerator
science.
Neutron Sources
9. ISIS should take the lead in specifying ISIS upgrades and then coordinating
contributions from interested parties (with appropriate funding).
10.STFC should establish the UK’s accelerator and target contributions to ESS as
soon as possible and provide a clear process for accessing resources to
ensure UK institutes are able to take leadership in ESS work.
11. ISIS, CI and other partners should consider opportunities for collaboration in
the area of RF technology development.
12.CI, JAI, ISIS, FETS and any other interested parties should look at whether
there is scope for a more coordinated approach across the community to beam
diagnostics for neutron source applications.
13. ISIS should investigate if there are suitable partners (possibly ASTeC, CERN,
JPARC or CSNS) to produce drop-in replacements for the ISIS synchrotron
dipole and quadrupole normal-conducting AC magnets.
Synchrotron Light Sources
14.STFC should continue to support R&D in Diamond in order to allow it to remain
competitive. The broad expertise developed at ASTeC, CI, Diamond and JAI in
the accelerator science and technology required for light sources should be
maintained by STFC with appropriate R&D programmes focussed on high
brightness synchrotron light sources.
15.DLS should seek funding to support the conceptual design for a full upgrade
of the Diamond-II lattice. Should Diamond-II be funded the DLS team should
lead the upgrade of the facility.
16.STFC should encourage further collaboration between ASTeC, CI universities,
JAI and Diamond. In particular, expansion of the scientific links with ASTeC
and CI could be beneficial for both parties.
Free Electron Lasers
17.Should construction of CLARA be approved a suitable mechanism should be
established to evaluate the merit and feasibility of any accelerator experiments
proposed to be carried out, to set the priorities, and to allocate appropriate
beam time.
18.The accelerator institutes and other university groups should consider further
engagement with FEL projects to take advantage of the associated
opportunities.
High Energy Lepton Machines
19.STFC should carefully watch the international situation for future lepton
colliders, to understand if the UK funding profile should decline or increase.
20.STFC should encourage closer interaction between linear collider and FEL and
light source communities.
21.STFC and MICE-UK should align the UK programme with the plan emerging
from the U.S. Department of Energy review.
High Energy Hadron Machines
22.STFC should undertake a strategic re-evaluation of UK contributions to
international high energy hadron colliders by the end of 2018 in light of the
LHC Run 2 results and developments in the global landscape (e.g. ILC
approval in Japan or circular e+/e- collider approval in China).
23.The UK HL-LHC accelerator community should prepare to seek funding for this
project from STFC after the end of the EU funded HiLumi Design Study. These
preparations should include the formal definition of a UK project with a
nominated contact person and management structure.
24.The UK accelerator community should prepare a coherent plan for UK
participation in FCC studies that takes into account potential EU funding.
Novel and Plasma Accelerators
25.Funding should be sought to enable some ns-FFAG projects to reach the
demonstrator stage to optimise the potential for links between UK industry and
this field of research.
26.STFC should consider, with appropriate peer review and tensioning, allocating
further funds to support ALICE operation and seek additional funding from a
broad range of external bodies for continued operation of ALICE as a user
facility and as a test-bed for future SCRF and ERL related activities.
27.The UK laser plasma wakefield groups proposing to work towards wakefield
accelerator based FELs should consider working more closely with
‘conventional’ RF accelerator based FEL designers to ensure that their efforts
are effectively targeted
Underpinning Technologies,
Gaps and Overlaps
• Beam control systems: strong
• Beam dynamics design and simulation: strong
• Beam instrumentation and diagnostics: strong
• Electron and ion sources: strong
• Electron recovery linacs (ERL): strong
• Hadron and neutron production targets: strong
• Normal conducting and permanent magnets: strong
• Vacuum system design: strong
• Lasers: strong but vulnerable
• Normal conducting RF: strong but vulnerable
• Parallel computing: emerging strength
• Superconducting RF (SCRF): emerging strength
• Cryogenics: vulnerable
• AC and superconducting magnets: weak
Underpinning Technologies,
Gaps and Overlaps
28.STFC should seek to leverage new funding streams in areas of strength in
underpinning technologies.
29.ASB should consider prioritising areas where lack of capability is
compromising the UK accelerator programme.
Global Challenges and Impact
30. Interest in ADSR systems has grown as a by-product of accelerator research,
rather than a demand driven, energy programme. Decisions in this area should
only be made after consultation with other funding bodies to ensure co-
ordination of effort nationally and internationally.
31.Peer review panels and oversight committees of accelerator projects should
continue to include engineering representation.
32.The STFC should put in place a method of collecting data regarding the
eventual employment of staff and students who have worked on the
accelerator programmes. This should be in a standard format and indicate
whether they operate in the UK or elsewhere
Optimal Accelerator Programme
33.The balance of the UK accelerator R&D programme should evolve to match UK
priorities for accelerator facilities. ASB should be responsible for monitoring
the balance of the programme.
34.ASB should be able to provide advice on a prioritized list of major investment
opportunities in different price brackets, based on the community’s priorities
for future facilities and projects identified by the Advisory Panels, in
preparation for any future BIS capital funding opportunities. This list should be
considered by SB to ensure optimum fit with STFC science priorities.
35.The role of ASTeC in the CI should be clarified by the Directors and STFC prior
to the next CI funding review. This should help with future requests for funding
to STFC and the development of strategy by the CI management.
36.The UK accelerator community should develop formal national project
structures, in partnership with STFC, early in the life-cycle of major projects in
order to prepare for timely bids for capital funds if/when resources become
available.
Optimal Accelerator Programme
37.The UK accelerator R&D programme supporting particle physics facilities
should be reviewed by STFC in 2018 in alignment with the European Strategy
for Particle Physics update.
38. In scenarios of flat or reduced funding for accelerator R&D ASB should
consider the balance between ‘near-market’ R&D supporting UK facilities in
line with STFC strategy and more speculative work.
39. In scenarios of small increases in funding for accelerator R&D investment to
further strengthen underpinning technologies should be considered. For larger
increases new projects should be considered.
Concluding Remarks
• Breadth and strength of programme extremely impressive
– Has led to international leadership: intellectual and coordination
• Benefited from significant investment from STFC and other
funders leading to growth and diversification
– Diversity both strength and weakness
– High priority for future on encouraging collaboration to foster
coherence and value for money
• If major new facilities are to be built further investment in
accelerator science in the UK will be required.