Images de page
PDF
ePub

SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER

Question 9: At the recent Geneva Summit, President Reagan proposed an initiative on international cooperation in fusion. High energy physics would also seem to be an appropriate initiative for international cooperation. Can we expect that such a proposal for international cooperation in high energy physics might be forthcoming in this year's Summit talks with the Soviet Union, and if so, might not a joint effort on the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) be considered?

the

Answer: There are no such plans at the present time. The Soviets are embarked on construction of a major accelerator project of their own, UNK at Serpukhov. This accelerator will have several phases, eventually achieving both 3 TeV proton fixed-target capability and proton-proton colliding beams at 3 TeV per beam in the early to mid-1990's.

Because of

this major commitment, it seems unlikely the USSR would be able to also contribute substantively to the construction of the SSC.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN BARTON

Question 1: The CDG cost document will be reported to DOE in April. Preliminary reports indicate that despite major efforts to reduce costs, the final price tag of the SSC will be $4-5 billion. This is in line with your answers to my previous written questions about the final cost of the SSC. At that time you stated that you did " .....not expect a radical change from the cost estimates made for the Reference Designs Study." Will the Department support the SSC at this cost?

Answer: It appears that the new cost estimate of the Central Design Group

will be consistent with or perhaps somewhat lower than the Reference Designs Study estimate. The question of cost will indeed be a consideration in the Departmental review of the project this spring and summer.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN BARTON

Question 2: Last October, I asked you at what cost DOE will withdraw its support of the project. At that time, you responded that this issue

[ocr errors]

.will be extensively debated within the Department in the coming year." While I do not doubt that is the case, my question remains unanswered. The Department has had nearly 5 months to "extensively debate" this question. I will ask again at what cost will the DOE withdraw its support for the

SSC?

Answer: The Department has not reached a decision on the cost issues related to SSC. These issues will be taken up as part of the Department's review and decision process this summer. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the results of this review and/or how extensively cost will enter into the decision on whether to fund such a construction project.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN BARTON

-

Question 3: Though the DOE has accepted the magnet selection of the CDG, serious questions remain about the magnet selection particularly regarding costs. Would the DOE be willing to consider alternatives to the high-field magnet if the cost of the high-field remains prohibitive and other options with significantly lower costs are available?

[ocr errors]

Answer: Technical feasiblity and performance, along with construction cost of the overall SSC facility and its eventual annual operating costs, are prime considerations in the R&D and design effort for the SSC. The magnet type selection process by CDG, which DOE carefully reviewed and concurred in, chose the high-field magnet as having the greatest assurance of success and performance as well as leading to the least expensive facility. Furthermore, the high-field magnet was judged to be better developed and, thus, to entail less technical risk and follow-up R&D requirements. It should also be noted that the only operating high energy accelerator in the world employing superconducting magnets (the Tevatron) uses a variation of the high field, cosine-theta type magnets and that two other world-forefront accelerators employing superconducting magnets under construction in West Germany and the USSR also use the cosine-theta type superconducting magnets. Thus, there is a wealth of experience with cosine-theta type magnets that does not exist with the lower field (superferric magnets). No development since the

decision last September warrants changing the current direction of the SSC magnet research program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN BARTON

Question 4: In your answers to Chairman Fuqua at the hearing, you stated that 80-90% of the information necessary to make the decision on the SSC is available. What constitutes the remaining 10-20% of the information? How soon can we expect to have this remaining information?

Additional

Answer: I was speaking in a general way to convey an impression of where the project stands. We believe that the R&D information in hand is sufficient to establish the feasibility and cost of the project. information, as will be developed this coming year, will be used for optimization of the various technical systems. While this information would be included in the decision making process were it available, it is not expected that it would make a significant impact on the decision.

Because

of the stringent budget conditions, it was felt that an early decision should be made in order to direct most efficiently the use of available R&D funds.

« PrécédentContinuer »