CONTINUOUS ELECTRON BEAM ACCELERATOR FACILITY

Question 4: If the potential for a significant upgrade in the energy of CEBAF was a factor in the decision to replace the original design with a superconducting-linac design, what is the scientific basis for desiring an energy greater than 4 GeV?

Answer: There is no present compelling scientific justification for

desiring energies greater than 4 GeV. In DOE's experience, however, such a need arises naturally during the conduct of a scientific program at a productive and effective facility. Inclusion of an upgrade capability--in

energy range or other parameters of the facility--allows flexibility for future management options. Since it is much cheaper and more efficient to upgrade an existing facility, the potential for upgrade is a bonus in the design of any new facility.

CONTINUOUS ELECTRON BEAM ACCELERATOR FACILITY

Question 5: If there is indeed a scientific basis for desiring energies higher than 4 GeV for CE BAF, why is the Department planning to proceed with a lower energy machine?

Answer: At present there is not an identified scientific basis for desiring energies higher than 4 GeV for CEBAF. The design energy for CEBAF will

directly address that scientific area for which it was intended,

encompassing the energy range from nucleon-meson to quark-gluon descriptions of nuclear matter.

CONTINUOUS ELECTRON BEAM ACCELERATOR FACILITY

Question 6: What energy upgrades of CEBAF are considered feasible, and what might be the cost of such upgrades?

Answer: Though the present design of the machine does not foreclose the possibility of future energy upgrades, the energy that could be achieved without significant changes to the physical plant depend sensitively on potential developments in accelerator cavities and superconducting materials such as niobium-tin. Any substantial change in machine energy would require corresponding changes in beam magnets, experimental areas, and detectors. Since no efforts have been made to determine the actual requirements of possible future upgrades, even rough cost estimates are not available.

SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER

Question 7: On page 13 on your testimony, you refer to "an indepth Departmental review of the SSC this summer." What is the Department's precise timetable for a decision on whether or not to proceed with the SSC?

Answer: The review will be held in time for the results to be factored into

the FY 1988 budget cycle. A precise timetable does not exist at the present

time.

SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER

.

Question 8: Funding of approximately $20 million per year for the SSC R&D for FY 1984 FY 1986 has been part of the High Energy Technology program. The FY 1986 appropriation for High Energy Technology is about $88.5 million, while the FY 1987 request is $95.5 million, a $7.0 million dollar increase. Based upon past experience, this request would imply that something of the order of $30 million in FY 1987 could be made available for SSC R&D without requiring a supplemental appropriation or a reprogramming. In the event there is a decision not to proceed with the SSC, what would these High Technology funds be used for?

Answer: As indicated earlier, the FY 1987 request for high energy

technology permits an overall level of effort in the accelerator R&D program below the FY 1985 level and near the pre-Gramm-Rudman-Hollings FY 1986 level. It needs to be noted that the U.S. high energy physics program will require some new frontier experimental capability by about the mid-1990's if it is to remain a viable and first rate research effort. In particular, detailed considerations of promising alternative technologies show that any hadron collider will require superconducting magnets. Thus, a substantial level of superconducting magnet R&D needs to be carried out in the program even if the specific focus on the Superconducting Super Collider, SSC, were discontinued. This would also make it important to bring on-going SSC

these investments.

R&D activities to an orderly conclusion in order to obtain the results of current R&D studies in order for future plans and designs to benefit from The funding required in FY 1987 to conclude some of the ongoing SSC R&D studies on superconducting magnets, cryogenics, accelerator systems, and beam dynamics, and to redirect others, would be near the FY 1986 funding level for SSC R&D activities. It should be recalled that when R&D studies for the SSC were first initiated in FY 1984, this effort was accomplished by redirecting ongoing accelerator R&D efforts within the high energy physics program, without the appropriation of additional funds.

60-549 0 - 86 - 5