Page images
PDF
EPUB

We propose to start by building the underground tunnel, counting room and refrigerator room and placing the accelerator in the tunnel, section by section, starting with the injector end. Each 20 feet of the superconducting accelerator would be tested in the tunnel before the next section is completed and desirable improvements incorporated in subsequent sections. When the first 250 feet of the SCA is completed, hopefully by the end of 1968, bending magnets placed before the beam switchyard of end station number one would permit the beam of the SCA to be bent upward, turi horizontally, and passed through the two present end stations. The present Mark III accelerator would then be turned off, and the first part of the superconducting accelerator would substitute for it.

The research efforts of the laboratory could thus be utilized to test the first half of the superconducting accelerator, but only at the reduced beam currents which could be tolerated with the inadequate shielding available in the present end stations. At the same time, construction of additional accelerator sections would proceed in the tunnel during the day time when the accelerator is not running. The shielded underground end station would also be built at this time and the 2 BEV spectrometer would be installed in the end station, so that the full capabilities of the SCA could be tested a 2 BEV or higher energies by the end of 1970. It is important to note that the research applications of the combination of accelerator, end station, and spectrometer offer such exciting new possibilities in nuclear and high energy physics that the enthusiastic cooperation and help of the entire laboratory will be available full time for developing and testing the accelerator. Future low-temperature developments

The proposal makes provision for a single 300 watt, 1.85° K refrigerator capable of operating a lead coated accelerator at an estimated 20 percent duty cycle. We anticipate that a design and engineering effort in cooperation with industry will produce in the future the possibility of building a larger refrigerator using a turbine pump to compress the helium at 1.85° K, thus eliminating the necessity of larger room temperature vacuum pumps which would become prohibitive in size for a much larger refrigerator. Furthermore, if shipboard application is ever considered, an additional refrigeration capability should be added to eliminate completely the necessity of liquid nitrogen in the dewars and the refrigerator so that only electric power would be required as an input. We would hope to be able to participate in the development of a larger turbine refrigerator under Navy support and to add such a refrigeration capability to the accelerator in future years. This would make it possible to run the 500 foot accelerator at 2 BEV with CW operation.

We plan to study the feasibility of making use of low temperatures throughout the entire High Energy Physics Laboratory; for example, superconducting magnets will be used for quadruple focusing magnets, for bending magnets, and for spectrometers when considered feasible. We are also developing a method of reading the beam current with a superconducting magnetometer. We anticipate that the High Energy Physics Laboratory with the superfluid helium refrigerator and heat transport system which delivers the refrigeration throughout the entire laboratory offers an ideal experimental setup to test many different kinds of low temperature applications on a practical scale.

The high Q cavities which we have developed for the accelerator represent the highest Q macroscopic structures available in nature and offer interesting possibilities for new kinds of very stable oscilators and frequency systems which might have use in Navy communications and guidance. We will continue to test the properties of such cavities. The SCA represents a reliability test under high power continuous operation.

As a parallel effort under separate support we are developing a superconducting magnetometer which is more sensitive than any in existence. It appears capable of detecting 10-10 gauss. We are also developing a truly zero magnetic field region using superconducting shields and the principle of quantized flux. In such a magnetic field free region it is possible in principle to construct a free precession nuclear Hegyro with a drift rate orders of magnetude less than existing gyros. We are constructing an experimental model of such a gyro. University contribution to the project

The University has made major contributions already to the project in terms of land and the normal 5 percent prorata charges for relocating facilities,

professors' salaries during the academic year and the appointment of Dr. H. Alan Schwettman as a new tenure associate professor. In addition the University has already contributed over two hundred thousand dollars in reduced indirect cost rate by agreeing not to increase it retroactively for the past two years from the present 46 percent. The University is also willing to continue the 43 percent rate rather than the government approved 55 percent for at least two more years, and possibly for the full four years, a tangible indication of its willingness to keep the agreement reached with the Navy on this five year program; this could reduce the cost of the program by as much as half a million dollars.

It has been realized from the beginning by both the Stanford Linear ACcelerator Center (SLAC) and the Physics Department that the development of a superconducting accelerator at the High Energy Physics Laboratory would provide an ideal test and demonstration of the possible practicality of ultimately converting SLAC to superconducting operation. In the recent 6 year projected program submitted by SLAC to the AEC, a study of the feasibility of converting SLAC to SCA was included to begin in 1971 when the HEPL superconducting accelerator should be completed.

MAY 23, 1967. Mr. John S. FOSTER, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHNNY: Thank you for your letter of May 8, 1967 concerning developments at Stanford University in regard to the Mark III electron linear accelerator program.

We recognize that the work performed by the Stanford group using the Mark III accelerator has been and continues to be of the highest quality. Furthermore, this group has successfully pioneered the development of superconducting linear accelerators. The recent successful operation of a test section of a superconducting linear accelerator is a most significant accomplishment. The proposed program for fabricating a 2 Bev superconducting linear accelerator represents a major and important step forward in accelerator technology. We agree with your confidence in the ability of the Stanford group to carry out this project and certainly feel that this project is worthy of support.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has very capably supported the Stanford linear accelerator program to date. We do not consider that the proposed 2 Bev program and the SLAC program will be in competition but rather that the programs will complement each other, particularly since the 2 Bev accelerator will provide a facility for electron research with beams of very high duty cycle and high intensity and will operate in an energy range below which SLAC would normally operate. Continued ONR support for the linear accelerator program at Stanford, including the proposed 2 Bev superconducting accelerator, appears to be in accord with the spirit of the 1965 interagency study. We feel that it most appropriate for ONR to support the full program associated with the development as well as operation and research utilization of the proposed 2 Bev superconducting accelerator and would like to encourage you to agree.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm our opinion that development of the 2 Bev superconducting accelerator facility should be pursued and strongly urge that the Department of Defense make every effort to provide full support for this activity. Cordially,

GLENN T. SEABORG,

Chairman.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING,

Washington, D.C., June 9, 1967. Hon. GLENN. T. SEABORG, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.

DEAR GLENN : Before leaving the country for an overseas trip, Dr. Foster asked me to reply to your letter of 23 May about the proposed Stanford accelerator.

The 1965 interagency study group was convened because of a DoD decision to withdraw support from furher expensive undertakings in high-energy physics accelerators. At that time DoD agreed only to supply funds for modernizing the

Mark III machine, and for the superconducting technology then being developed at Stanford. The proposal for support of construction of a superconducting machine was specifically disapproved by the interagency group.

We are increasingly interested in Stanford's excellent low-temperature work, which has advanced significantly during the last two years. But we are even less interested now in supporting high-energy physics since this area has not shown much relevance to defense problems. No longer can we assign limited research funds to high-energy physics while much more relevant and promising fields are competing for our support.

Specifically, we have decided not to provide the funds for constructing the proposed superconducting machine at Stanford. If this machine is really important to the future of our national high-energy physics program, then it should be supported by an agency that has the responsibility for, and a vigorous interest in, that future. We are prepared to share the funding during a transition period, and intend to do so.

I hope very much that you will re-examine this matter in light of our strong, clear view that DoD cannot continue its support for the high-energy physics program at Stanford. Sincerely yours,

FINN J. LARSEN.

SEPTEMBER 15, 1967. Mr. John S. FOSTER, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHNNY: I am writing again concerning the status of plans for the superconducting accelerator proposed by Stanford University.

Mr. Finn Larsen's letter of June 9, 1967, (copy attached) indicated that you had decided not to provide funds for constructing the proposed superconducting accelerator at Stanford University. On August 18, 1967, Mr. Fred Schuldt (BOB) requested a meeting with representatives of those agencies involved in supporting high energy physics research to discuss the situation at Stanford. At that meeting, Mr. Nichols of your staff disclosed that approximately $5.5 million was being provided to Stanford University to construct an end station for the modernization of Mark III and a tunnel for the cryogenic test facilities. Recent discussions between members of my staff and yours indicate that you have now authorized approximately $5.5 million for this work.

In view of these developments, a further statement from you placing into perspective recent decisions affecting the proposed superconducting accelerator and restating your position regarding the Stanford proposal, would be of value to us in considering this matter further. Information as to how the DOD decision regarding the Stanford project will affect your overall program in nuclear physics in FY 1968, FY 1969 and future years would also be useful to us at this time.

Cordially,

Chairman,

OCTOBER 3, 1967. Hon. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, Director, Bureau of the Budget.

DEAR CHARLIE: "In accordance with the provisions of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended, and the budgetary and fiscal policies set forth in your letter of August 9, 1967, we are submitting budget estimates for the Atomic Energy Commission for fiscal year 1969 ..."

*

"Finally, on several occasions in the past, we have discussed AEC's role as executive agent for the country's high energy physics program. You will recall we have exchanged correspondence on this subject. It is important to note that the Commission cannot discharge this responsibility in a responsive manner under the budget policies controlling the preparation of the budget this year and in the past few years, and also meet its program obligations in the other areas of the Commission's operations. For the Commission to function adequately as executive agent for this country's high energy physics program, the following additions would have to be provided in the Commission's budget:

$12, 250

[In thousands) **Operating expenses :

Support for terminated DOD high-energy programs; maintenance
of a 21 shift in lieu of a 15-shift operation at SLAC; support of
university research user groups; conduct of cryogenic engineer-
ing and superconductivity R. & D.; and effective use of existing

accelerator facilities--*Equipment:

Procurement of the additional equipment needed to support the

above high-energy-physics activities --"Construction :

Construction of the SLAC electron-positron storage ring; the par-
ticle physics building at the University of Pennsylvania; a techni-
cal service building at Brookhaven; and additional accelerator
improvements

7, 300

24, 400

Total

43, 950 “We would be pleased to discuss in detail the specific needs for the individual items included in the above figures.

"The foregoing, of course, is exclusive of additional funding associated with the 200 Bev accelerator which we will be transmitting to you separately at a later date. It should be noted also that our total request for high energy physics, even with the above additions, would still be less than the amounts recommended by the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel in their briefings before the President's Scientific Advisory Committee.

"We recognize the profound budgetary problems facing the Administration and we wish to assure you of our complete cooperation in the search for acceptable solutions to those problems. We also believe, however, we have a responsibility to disclose to you the program demands and funding necessary for the Commission to perform its role in meeting the Administration's national objectives. The Commission and its staff are ready to discuss our programs and budget with you and your staff as you may desire." Cordially,

GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,

Washington, D.C., October 9, 1967. Hon. GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DR. SEABORG: As we presently see it, the budget guidance we have received will require that we terminate approximately 60% of the Navy's Contract Research Program in Nuclear Physics, exclusive of the amount planned for equipment modernization and continued support of work in cryogenic technology at the Stanford High Energy Physics Laboratory. Specifically, if we assume no additional reduction in the presently planned total of $7 million for the Navy nuclear physics research sub-element, the distribution for FY 1969 will be as follows:

In millions Stanford

$1.8 Other contracts

1.7 Naval Research Laboratory--

3. 5

Total

7.0 The attached résumé of the Contract Research Program shows an existing funding program, in addition to the Stanford program, of $4.13 million, of which only the $1.7 million shown above can be accommodated. Because of the severity of the situation, I thought it appropriate to let you know.

I am aware that DDR&E has already requested $2.255 million from the AEC and the NSF to support the balance of the Stanford program, thus bringing the combined support at Stanford for FY 1969 to the required total level of $4.055 million. In continuance of our interest in the cryogenics technology work, we presently plan to fund Stanford at about $2.0 million in FY 1970, but I cannot now state with any assurance what will be the impact of this on our FY 1970 nuclear physics sub-element. Sincerely,

ROBERT A. FROSCH.

[blocks in formation]

*National Bureau of Standards.
Stanford University-
Princeton University-
Cornell University-
University of Michigan..
Syracuse University
Princeton University
University of Colorado.
Harvard University -

S. Meshkov..
W. C. Barber
G. T. Reynolds.
H. Bethe.
L. W. Jones
J. Leitner.
G. K. O'Neill.
J. Dreitlein.
S. Glashow

Oct. 31, 1968
Dec. 31, 1968
Nov. 30, 1968
Dec. 31, 1968

do...,
June 30, 1968
Nov. 30, 1968
Sept. 30, 1968

[blocks in formation]

Total..

do.

120,000 20,000

39,000 2,778,000

:1 Terminating.
Note: Under AEC's definitions, the Cornell University effort is principally nuclear structure research.

NUCLEAR ASTROPHYSICS

California Institute of Technology-
University of Minnesota.
University of California.
Rice University-
State University of lowa.
Catholic University--
California Institute of Technology -
Stanford University -
Cornell University
University of California

Total..

C. D. Anderson.
J. Waddington.
J. M. Wilcox.
B. O'Brien..
J. A, Van Allen.
C. Cowan...
W. A. Fowler..
P. Sturrock.
T. Gold.
F. Mozer.

Dec. 31, 1969

.do.
June 30, 1968
July 31, 1968
Dec. 31, 1968

do.
Aug. 31, 1968
June 30, 1968

do
do.

$90,000 175,000 85,000 125,000 450,000

60,000 440,000 25, 000 41,200

25,000 1,516,200

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING,

Washington, D.O., October 10, 1967. Hon. GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.

DEAR GLENN : Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1967, regarding the superconducting accelerator proposed by Stanford University. I want to state again our position concerning support for the Stanford accelerator work. I believe this will be essentially a confirmation of our policies as delineated by Finn Larsen in his letter to you of June 9, 1967. We are proceeding precisely along the lines that we have described on several occasions.

In the 1965 interagency agreement, as you recall, we agreed to support the modernization of the Mark III accelerator. This modernization now involves the

« PreviousContinue »