« PrécédentContinuer »
How do you answer the criticism that DOE is continually seeking to build new facilities, but then fails to recommend sufficient funds to fully utilize these facilities once they become operational?
The optimum HEP program requires establishing a balance between three major program components: 1) Operation of existing accelerator facilities, 2) support for research utilizing these facilities, and 3) provision for the new facilities and/or facility upgrades needed to maintain the capabilities of the US HEP program in its world forefront position. A substantial unbalance in these factors can have serious consequences. Oversupport of facility operations at the expense of research support can lead to wasted beam time if the funding to install and operate experiments is depleted. Undersupport of facility operations leads to excessive and costly delays in completing experiments. Adequate but balanced funding needs to be provided for facility upgrades and the provision of new facilities. Otherwise, the technical capabilities of the facilities will not keep up with the ever escalating needs of the science. Inadequate provision for future capabilities will lead, in a few years, to second class facilities and stagnation.
Doesn't intensive use of existing facilities have a positive impact on the development of the next generation of U.S. scientists and engineers? How does this consideration enter into your decisionmaking in funding operations at existing facilities.
Development of the next generation of scientists and engineers is certainly one of the very important factors which must be considered in determining the balance described above and provision of opportunities for current research is essential for that development. Indeed, the health of the HEP research community in the period between now and when the SSC begins to
produce physics is a major concern and we believe it is
essential to maintain a healthy and productive HEP research program in this interim so that the US will be well positioned to take maximum scientific advantage of the nation's investment in the ssc.
IV. International Cooperation
The only country that has made a written statement of intent to contribute to the SSC is India. However, all countries with a capability in high energy physics have expressed an interest in the SSC program. This includes almost all the countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Are these cash or in-kind contributions? Describe the nature of the in-kind contributions.
India is interested in contributing manpower and hardware, inkind, to the extent of $50 million over a 10-year period.
What are the factors -- advantages and disadvantages -affecting your decision making on foreign participation in the technology development for the ssc, for example, in the case of the development of magnets.
The major factors affecting a decision on foreign participation in the technology development for the ssc, for example, in the case of the development of magnets include: technology transfer
and procurement policy.
With regard to technology transfer, any foreign companies that we anticipate would participate in the SSC already have the technology. In the U.S., the high performance magnets for accelerators have been built at DOE Laboratories and, hence,
this technology will have to be transferred to U.S. industry.
Therefore, from the standpoint of technology transfer, the U.S.
is more likely to gain than lose from any foreign participation.
With regard to procurement policy, unless an exemption is requested and granted, full and open competition will prevail. The advantage would be that the best bid would be awarded regardless of the origin. The disadvantage would be that if a U.S. firm does not receive the award, any benefits that might accrue as a result of funding such a procurement would only go to foreign entities.