Plasma Science: Advancing Knowledge in the National Interest (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

D Federal Support for Plasma Science and Engineering Plasma science and engineering is diffusely supported across the federal port- folio of science and technology. One aim of this report is to identify those research efforts more precisely and to communicate the common intellectual threads. This appendix describes some of the levels of federal support for plasma science and engineering. Because the research is so seemingly fragmented, the activities are discussed agency by agency. A further cautionary note is necessary. Because plasma science and engineering are supported in such different capacities by such different programs, the com- mittee was unable to obtain an authoritative and comprehensive view of federal investments. As an approximation, the committee reports here the most identifiable plasma-related funding. Finally, the following list may be helpful in connecting agency programs with the scientific topics discussed in the report: • DOE’s Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) is the primary supporter of magnetic fusion science. OFES also participates in the NSF/DOE Part- nership for Basic Plasma Science and Engineering, which supports basic plasma science. It is also starting to support some HED physics. • DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is the chief sup- porter of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and HED physics. • DOE’s Office of High Energy Physics manages an advanced technology R&D program that includes work on plasma-based accelerators. 230 

A pp e n d i x D 231 • DOE’s Office of Nuclear Physics supports research in quark-gluon plasmas, a topic related to the HED science discussed in this report. • The Office of Naval Research (ONR) supported research activities in basic plasma science, low-temperature plasma science and engineering, and space plasma physics but terminated its support for them in 2003. • The National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Engineering Directorate is the primary supporter of low-temperature plasma science and engineering through distributed involvement in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and through its Combustion, Fire, and Plasma Systems program. • NSF’s Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate supports plasma research through its Astronomy Division (space and astrophysical plasmas) and its Physics Division (mostly basic plasma science). There are no dedi- cated plasma programs; the Physics Frontier Center program does include several centers with plasma research topics. NSF’s Geosciences Directorate supports a large number of atmospheric and space plasma activities. • The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) supports space and astrophysical plasma research diffusely as part of the science component of its satellite missions. NASA also supports a small program in laboratory astrophysics whose focus on atomic, molecular, and optical spectroscopy has some overlap with plasma science. Department of Energy DOE’s support for plasma science is dominated by its investments in the areas of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and magnetic confinement fusion (Fig- ure D.1). The leading programs in these areas are at OFES and NNSA. Office of Fusion Energy Sciences at DOE OFES in DOE’s Office of Science has been a traditional steward for fusion science as well as plasma science (Figure D.2). The mission of the program is to advance plasma science, fusion science, and fusion technology—the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive source of fusion energy. The approximately $150 million funding of the OFES science program in FY2006 included support for theory ($25 million), advanced computing ($4 mil- lion: Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing), and research on toka- mak experiments ($46 million: major facilities DIII-D in San Diego, and C-Mod  The committee extends its grateful appreciation to Al Opdenaker and Francis Thio for their expert assistance on these matters. 

232 Plasma Science 800 700 OFES 600 ICF Annual Budget ($ millions) OFES (FY96) 500 ICF (FY96) 400 300 200 100 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 FIGURE D.1  Historical perspective on federal funding for fusion research. The dashed lines have been corrected for inflation in terms of FY1995 dollars. The OFES line represents (roughly) the total DOE/OFES annual budget (dominated by magnetic fusion); the line for ICF represents an estimate of the DOE defense program’s sup- port for inertial fusion. SOURCE: Fusion Power Associates, compiled from historical budget tables; available at http://aries.ucsd.edu/FPA/OFESbudget.shtml. D-1 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as international collaborations, diagnostics, and other activities), alternative concepts ($60 million: NSTX at Princeton, the Madison Symmetric Torus at the University of Wisconsin, and high energy density projects, plus about 10 other plasma experiments elsewhere), and general plasma science activities ($14 million). The OFES general plasma science program supports several areas of plasma research. The Partnership for Basic Plasma Science and Engineering program is jointly sponsored by DOE and NSF, to which DOE contributed (in FY2006) $4.7 million for university research, $2.4 million for national laboratory research, $1.3 million for the Junior Faculty Development Program, and $1.1 million for the Basic Plasma Science Facility at the University of California at Los Angeles. In addition, the general plasma science program supported two recently established fusion sci- 

Prog Direction History of DOE/OFES Budget Enabling R&D $800,000 Facility Ops Science $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 FY2006 $K $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 85 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FIGURE D.2  Breakdown of the major components of the OFES annual budget, 1985-2006. 233 D.2 

234 Plasma Science ence centers ($2.5 million: Multi-Scale Plasma Dynamics, Extreme States of Matter) and fusion-related atomic physics and several other activities ($2.1 million). Inertial Fusion Energy and HED Physics at DOE/OFES Planning for transitioning the OFES inertial fusion energy (IFE) program to a program addressing the HED physics issues that have potential applications to inertial fusion began in FY2003. The budget for this line of programs from FY2004 to FY2007 is as follows: FY2004, $17.3 million; FY2005, $14.7 million; FY2006, $16 million; and FY2007, $11.9 million. Before FY2005, the OFES program was focused on the development of the heavy ion beam as a driver for IFE. In FY2004, $16.3 million was used for research in heavy-ion-driven IFE. The remaining $1 million was used to fund a small ef- fort in fast ignition and research in the behavior of dense plasma in very high magnetic fields. In heavy-ion-driven IFE, $15.2 million was for research related to the development of the heavy-ion accelerator science, and $1.1 million was for research in the target physics and designs for heavy-ion-driven IFE. In accelerator development, there were three research components: the ion source, the transport of the beam, and the focusing and compression of the beam. In redirecting the heavy ion research toward a program in HED physics, the goal of the program was redefined to one of developing a user facility for warm dense matter research. Research on the transport of the beam was further curtailed and concentrated on compressing and focusing the beams to increase the intensity of the beam about 100-fold. Such beam intensities are required in order to produce warm dense matter. A new initiative was launched in FY2005 with a call for research in fast ignition, plasma jets, and dense plasmas in high magnetic fields, resulting in a total funding for these subfields of HED physics of $3.4 million, leaving $11.3 mil- lion for heavy-ion-related HED physics research. In FY2006, Congress increased the funding for fast ignition by $2 million, which included work on target physics, with a corresponding reduction in heavy- ion-beam research. Congress also added $1 million for research in dense plasmas in high magnetic fields using the Atlas pulsed-power facility. Thus the total fund- ing for fast ignition, plasma jets, and dense plasmas in high fields was increased to $6.7 million while the funding for heavy ion beams was reduced to $9.3 million. The President’s FY2007 budget further reduced research in heavy-ion-related HED physics to $8.2 million, while the research for fast ignition, plasma jets, and dense plasmas in high fields was reduced to $3.7 million. National Nuclear Security Administration at DOE Established by Congress in 2000, the NNSA is a semiautonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through 

A pp e n d i x D 235 NNSA Annual Budget for Plasma and HED Science Requested $350,000 Appropriated $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 FY2006 $K $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 FIGURE D.3  NNSA budget for plasma and HED science, corrected for inflation, during the past decade. D.3 the military application of nuclear energy. Part of the NNSA mission is to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to meet national security requirements. To accomplish these objectives and others, NNSA runs a series of campaigns. The most relevant ones for plasma research are the Science Campaign, which fo- cuses primarily on certification of warhead readiness, and the Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) and High Yield Campaign, which focuses on developing laboratory capabilities to create and measure extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, and radiation. As shown in Figure D.3, support for the component of the ICF and High Yield Campaign that involves plasma science (primarily HED physics) has con- sistently been about $200 million per year. Figure D.4 breaks out the component of that funding that supports activities at universities, including the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE).  The committee extends its grateful appreciation to Christopher Keane and Joe Kindel for their expert assistance on these matters. 

236 Plasma Science NNSA Budget for University Plasma and HED Science 70,000 LLE Req LLE Approp 60,000 Univ Total Req Univ Total Approp 50,000 FY2006 $K 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 FIGURE D.4  NNSA funding for university programs, corrected for inflation, for plasma and HED science over the past decade. Funding for the LLE at the University of Rochester is shown as a portion of the overall budget. D.4 Stewardship Science Academic Alliance at DOE/NNSA • In FY2005, the eight awards made to individual investigators represented a total investment of $8.4 million over 3 years. One center of excellence award involved funding of $4 million projected over 2 years. The aggregate average level of annual funding will be $4.8 million. • In FY2002, the eight awards made to individual investigators represented a total investment of $7.3 million over 3 years. Two centers of excellence awards were made (Cornell University and University of Texas) and in- volved $16 million over 3 years. The aggregate average level of annual funding was nearly $7 million. Advanced Accelerator Research and Development Program at DOE/HEP DOE’s Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) manages a suite of programs sup- porting research into advanced accelerator concepts in support of DOE’s overall mission (see Figure D.5). This program has traditionally been a strong supporter  The committee expresses its grateful appreciation to Glen Crawford for his expert assistance on these matters. 

A pp e n d i x D 237 DOE/HEP Advanced Accelerator Funding $90 $80 $70 $60 FY2006 $M $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 FIGURE D.5  Total funding in inflation-adjusted dollars for the DOE advanced accelerator R&D program. D.5 of laser–plasma and beam–plasma interactions because of their potential applica- tions to future accelerators such as the plasma-wake field accelerator described in the report. Perhaps 10 percent of this program is devoted to explicit plasma science such as wake field acceleration. In a recent report prepared by the DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) that examined the future directions for this program, the authoring committee wrote as follows: Another difference is that the European AARD activity emphasizes multi-national, multi-laboratory efforts, cross-institutional networking, and cross-disciplinary work between HEP, nuclear physics, light source, and laser acceleration laboratories. There has also been a recent flowering of ultra-high intensity, short pulse laser ac- celeration R&D in smaller institutes and universities, particularly in Asia. The US is rapidly being overtaken in this area, with US laser development oriented more towards NIF and related programs. With the closing of FFTB at SLAC and ensuing hiatus in the beam-based wakefield program, the US leadership in long range, plasma acceleration R&D is being effectively challenged.  HEPAP, Report of the HEPAP Subpanel on the Assessment of Advanced Accelerator Research and Development, Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, 2006, p. 31. 

238 Plasma Science Office of Naval Research The Office of Naval Research supported a strong program in plasma science although its investments were relatively modest. However, because of changing priorities at the Navy, these programs have been discontinued. In earlier years, ONR supported the following research areas: • Basic laboratory plasma physics (1988-2002), $2.5 million/year, • Initiatives in microwaves (1982-1987), $1.0 million/year, • Initiative in particle beams (1982-1987), $1.0 million/year, • Basic research in nonneutral plasma (1994-2002) at $1.5 million/year, and • Advanced accelerator research at $2 million/year for 5 years. Taken together, ONR’s investments represent more than $60 million over nearly 20 years. National Science Foundation The NSF has traditionally supported plasma research in a number of different programs because the science cuts across many disciplines. For instance, the study of basic plasma science has traditionally been directed by NSF’s Physics Division while much of the low-temperature plasma science and engineering work has been overseen by its Engineering Directorate. Space plasma science has been strongly supported by NSF’s Geosciences Directorate. To some extent, NSF’s participation in the NNI has provided some additional connections between plasma science and the core programs. Engineering NSF’s Engineering Directorate is undergoing some reorganization but the Combustion, Fire, and Plasma Systems program has traditionally been a source of limited support for plasma research (Figure D.6). The committee notes that aside from the NSF engineering support for low- temperature plasma science, there is no other stable support for this research. The NSF/DOE partnership for basic plasma science invests only modestly in low- temperature research, and participation in that program has been decreasing.  The committee expresses its grateful appreciation to Phillip Westmoreland and Geoffrey Prentice for their expert assistance in these matters. 

A pp e n d i x D 239 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 As-Spent Dollars $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FIGURE D.6  Support from the NSF Engineering Division for low-temperature plasma engineering research over the past decade. Data for 2005 and 2006 are estimates. D.6 DOE’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences does not support low-temperature research except for several grants that cross over into chemistry. Astronomy The NSF Astronomy Division occasionally participates in the NSF/DOE Part- nership for Basic Plasma Science and Engineering. Space and astrophysical plasma research also figures in its general university grant portfolio. Based on an infor- mal analysis of the FY2006 program, it was estimated that the program included about $4 million of research support that was plasma science per se. By com- parison, the entire FY2006 budget for traditional single-investigator programs was about $39 million; thus explicit plasma science represents about 10 percent of the portfolio. In terms of involvement in the NSF/DOE partnership, the Astronomy Divi- sion records show the following: FY2006, $137,000; FY1999, $250,000; FY1998, $250,000; and FY1997, $250,000.  The committee extends grateful appreciation to Nigel Sharp for his expert assistance in this regard. 

240 Plasma Science Physics Using an informal analysis of the NSF abstracts and awards database, the an- nual investment in plasma science through the NSF Division of Physics was tracked (Figure D.7). In addition to the individual grants program of about $3 million per year, a Physics Frontier Center was launched in 2001. Based jointly at the Univer- sity of Michigan and the University of Texas, the name of its program describes its research focus: Frontiers in Optical Coherent and Ultrafast Science. NSF also launched the Physics Frontier Center for Magnetic Self-Organization in Labora- tory and Astrophysical Plasmas (CMSO) in September 2003. It receives about $2 million per year and encompasses activities at University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of Chicago, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, and five other institutions. CMSO aims to investigate basic problems in plasma physics common to the laboratory and the cosmos. NSF/Physics Support of Plasma Science (est.) As-Spent $$ $9,000,000 FY2006 $$ $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 FIGURE D.7  History of support for plasma science from the NSF Division of Physics (estimated). The significant increase in FY2001 marks the beginning of the University of Michigan Physics Frontier Center. Physics Division grants made through the NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering are included. D.7 

A pp e n d i x D 241 NSF/DOE Partnership in BASIC Plasma Science and Engineering Examining the NSF abstracts and awards database, NSF’s annual participa- tion in the joint partnership with DOE for support of basic plasma science and engineering can be deduced (Figure D.8). The first grants were awarded in the fall of 1997. The three directorates most heavily involved have been Engineering, Geosciences, and Mathematical and Physical Sciences. National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA supports a significant portfolio of astronomy and astrophysics research probably because at least 99 percent of the visible universe is composed of plasmas. Because the agency is organized around mission themes, however, it is difficult to estimate the fraction of NASA science programs that addresses plasma science. NSF Participation in NSF/DOE Partnership for Basic Plasma Science & Engineering $4,000,000 GEO ENG $3,500,000 MPS $3,000,000 As-Spent $$ (approx.) $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 FIGURE D.8  Annual levels of participation from three directorates at NSF in the NSF/DOE Partnership for Basic Plasma Science and Engineering. The three directorates are mathematical and physics sciences (MPS), engi- neering (ENG), and geology (GEO). D.8 

242 Plasma Science For instance, much of space weather science is plasma science. The space and solar physics budget at NASA has been around $400 million per year, and perhaps 10-20 percent of that funding could be identified as going to plasma science, in the strict sense, and as much as half could be space-plasma research. Because NASA does not programmatically recognize plasma science as a dis- cipline, the committee was unable to achieve a finer level of detail.