We are requesting $29.61 million for the Controlled Thermonuclear Program in FY 1971 which is an increase of $1,930,000 over the FY 1970 level. Included in the request is an increase of $2,294,000 for normal, or base program, operating expenses, and a decrease of $364,000 in the major device fabrication activity. The increase in normal operating expenses will permit a strengthening of our efforts in confinement systems research providing support for the experimental devices which are used to check theory and progress toward the goal of a fusion reactor. The major device fabrication activity will be decreased $364,000 to a level of $2,470,000. Details pertaining to the nature and funding status of our various devices are contained on pages Res 31 and 32 of our budget document. If I might cast an eye toward the future for a moment it is apparent that an intense program of research aimed at proving scientific feasibility lies ahead. To obtain the plasma conditions necessary for a fusion power reactor in a single experiment may require several years. Simultaneously, technological studies oriented toward design of fusion reactors should be intensified-various fusion fuel cycles should be studied and new energy conversion technologies uniquely applicable to fusion power should be investigated. In all these endeavors environmental considerations will be continually assessed to achieve the maximum compatibility of fusion power with the future needs of our society. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Amasa S. Bishop, who has served as the Assistant Director in charge of the Controlled Thermonuclear Program for the past four years, is leaving the federal service. He has done an outstanding job in shaping the direction and tenor of the program. Professor Roy Gould of the California Institute of Technology will replace Dr. Bishop for a two year period. Professor Gould has considerable experience in plasma physics and CTR and is familiar with both the research effort and the present laboratory management. We are confident there will be a smooth transition and continuation of the encouraging momentum characterizing the program. This concludes my remarks Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to respond to any questions you and other members of the committee may have. LASERS FOR CTR Chairman HOLIFIELD. Before we close, could I ask you one question, and we are going to supply you with a number of questions which we may ask you to answer for the record. This one I thought we might bring up. We have noted quite a few articles recently about laser research being conducted, laser-induced fusion research being conducted in the United States and elsewhere. Is there real possibility that lasers can substantially shorten the time to a practical fusion reactor? Dr. MCDANIEL. Dr. Hirsch is my expert on lasers too. Chairman HOLIFIELD. Dr. Hirsch. Dr. HIRSCH. In the CTR program we have been involved in laser plasma research for a number of years, recognizing the possibilities since the advent of lasers back in the early 1960's. Right now we are primarily involved in utilizing lasers to create plasma by the irradiation of a small pellet within some of our standard magnetic field configurations. This research has worked out quite well in recent years. and it is progressing forward. Another possibility involves irradiating some kind of suitable fusion material with a very high power laser to produce a microexplosion. This microexplosion could conceivably be adapted to make a fusion reactor-one in which the operation is similar to that of an automobile engine, where a series of explosions would be produced by continually dropping these pellets into a reacting volume, irradiating them, thereby producing microexplosions. The explosive energy would be externally converted into electrical power. We recently took a hard look at this possibility. It is our feeling that it will be some time in the future before this particular scheme could be made into a thermonuclear reactor contender. Chairman HOLIFIELD. Thank you, sir. Dr. MCDANIEL. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Bishop, as you know, who has been heading this program has accepted a position in Europe and this particular day he had to go to Europe and asked me to express his admiration of this committee and hopefully that he would be able to see you personally before he takes his new job sometime around the first of April. He is prepared to give you any prognosis, Mr. Hosmer, on the future of controlled thermonuclear and other things, and I would be willing to prepare a case for you. Chairman HOLIFIELD. We are going to recess until 2 o'clock. We will have Dr. Totter on the biology and medicine part of the program. Thank you, gentlemen. (JCAE questions on the physical research program and AEC responses follow :) Mr. EDWARD J. BAUSER, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Executive Director, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR MR. BAUSER: Your letter of March 10, 1970, provided a number of questions pertaining to the physical research and the civilian applications of nuclear explosions programs.1 I am pleased to forward our responses to your questions which I understand will be included in the hearing record of the FY 1971 authorization hearings. Cordially, W. E. JOHNSON, Acting Chairman. DIVISION OF RESEARCH REPLIES TO SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS ON PHYSICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM 1. HOW MUCH FUNDING IS PROVIDED FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS IN THE UNITED STATES IN ADDITION TO THAT PROVIDED BY THE AEC? 1 The JCAE questions and AEC responses on the civilian applications of nuclear explosives program appear on p. 642. 1 2. The Committee understands that the AEC management information system currently under development contains several subsystems pertaining to the management of various AEC activities. Is there a subsystem pertaining to research activities? If so, briefly describe it, and, if not, explain why. AEC does not have a single automated subsystem for Research. There are currently available, however, systems for financial information, contracts information and personnel information that the Division of Research may draw upon for their purposes. Current plans include exploration into a research-oriented special system in the future. 3. Does AEC attempt to influence the laboratories' level of effort in each of the three budget categories—design and development of devices, research and operations? If so, please explain how this is accomplished. AEC influences the laboratories' level of effort in the three sub-categories by indicating funding levels for each sub-category in the financial plans issued to the contractor. These financial plans are normally reviewed and revised several times during the course of the year. In addition, correspondence transmitted periodically to the contractor contains specific guidance regarding selected special items or activities. This type of guidance is also carried out more or less informally throughout the year through numerous meetings and discussions. The laboratory has the responsibility to determine the final allocation of funds among the sub-categories to achieve the best balance and most productive program within the funds available. 4. In connection with AEC's determination of the amount of operating funds to be allocated to each accelerator, what consideration is given to the labora tories' backlog of experiments to be run? The size of the backlog of experiments to be run at each accelerator is not a direct consideration in determining the allocation of HEP funds since it is not considered a particularly good quantitative indicator of accelerator priority. There are heavy demands and significant backlogs of high-quality experiments on all of the accelerators in the high energy physics program. Any significant indication of loss of interest in the experimental utilization of a particular accelerator as evidenced by a reduction in backlog (or a deterioration of the quality of proposed experiments) however would certainly lead to a re-analysis of its operation and reassessment of its funding level. 5. When allocating funds to these facilities, does AEC consider the average operating costs per accelerator beam hour and experimental hour at each laboratory? If 80, please provide this type of information for the major high energy accelerators or general statements regarding the relative differences in such costs among the laboratories. The cost per beam hour is not a major direct consideration in allocating funds since each accelerator has a unique set of characteristics, and experiments are generally done at the accelerator at which they can be most effectively handled. It is recognized that some types of machines are intrinsically more expensive to operate than others. For example, an electron Linac is more expensive to operate than an equivalent energy proton synchrotron, however, experiments requiring high energy electrons cannot be done at all at the proton facilities. The concept of cost per beam hour can be very deceptive since during each running period there are one to three high priority experiments which dictate the principal operating parameters. Other experiments are then run simultaneously in a noninterfering manner. A major consideration is that accelerator is usually most "cost effective" when operated at maximum capacity within budgetary constraints. 6. To what extent does AEC allocate funds on the basis of the relative priorities of the various classifications or categories of research? Please list these various categories of research and the relative priority that has been assigned to each. No attempt is made to define fixed classes of research for the purpose of assigning definite priorities to each. Areas of greatest research interest are in a continual state of evolution and change since each phase of investigation is determined to a large extent by the results of previous investigations. Progress in one area often brings greater understanding in another and thereby leads to even further progress in both areas. Priorities are assigned on a current basis by the laboratories to individual experiments with regard to their promise of shedding light upon the most pressing current questions. Priorities can shift on short notice on the basis of results from U.S. or foreign laboratories. A general consideration involved in allocating resources is the necessity to maintain a broadbased set of capabilities so that the program is in position to respond rapidly to the need for investigations in new directions which appear to be most promising. 7. What other criteria are considered in determining the funds to be allocated to each accelerator and what relative weights are assigned to these criteria? The two major overall factors considered in determining the allocation of funds are the scientific importance of the experiments which require the capabilities of the accelerator facility and the need to support each facility at a level necessary to maintain an effective program. However, a multitude of complex considerations enter into the decision-making in the process of evaluating these two major factors. A detailed knowledge and understanding of the status and many needs of the program and their relative importances and urgencies is required. In general, determinants affecting the level of funding include such things as whether or not new laboratory facilities are coming into operation at one or more of the labs; whether use of some facilities may be terminated; the necessity for major new items such as bubble chambers or other detection devices, lab space, experimental area, computers and so on; the relative operating levels of the various accelerators; and the need for beam-time by experimentalists. Allocation of funds within the high energy physics program requires constant review in that the needs and methods of reaching program goals shift in time so that the picture is never static. In establishing funding levels each year (and modifying them during the course of each year) a great deal of effort is expended in keeping up to date in assessing and understanding the various requirements at the different labs. A large part of this effort takes the form of studying budget documents, having conversations with lab officials, lab staff, and users, conducting program reviews, meeting with High Energy Physics Advisory Panel and studying the periodic reports from the labs. Each year, and indeed. during the course of any particular year, fiscal requirements must be weighed in terms of conditions and programmatic needs prevailing at the time. Proper evaluation of these many factors depends critically on the scientific and technical competence of AEC staff. 8. Is there a report of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel discussions on the FY 1971 budgetary problems? If so, please provide it for the Committee. No specific report on the FY 1971 budgetary problems has been issued by the Panel. However, AEC has received letters from the Chairman of HEPAP regarding the shutdown of PPA and the importance of the SLAC electron-positron colliding beam program. (Copies of these letters are on p. 577). The major source of advice from HEPAP ensues from direct participation by AEC representatives in the HEPAP discussions. In addition, the Panel's June 1969 "Report on High Energy Physics" which is an excellent and detailed overall report on the entire high energy physics field, includes discussion of the FY 1971 budgetary needs as well as hopes and aspirations for the future. (See p. 706.) 9. The AEC FY 1971 Budget includes $8.7 million for a CDC-7600 type computer at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. Briefly, what will be the capabilities of this machine and what other computers will also be available at LRL? On the basis of what criteria was it decided to purchase this $8.7 million computer? Acquisition of a major computer system at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory is required to avoid a restriction of research productivity at the laboratory. At the present time, four major scientific computer systems are available; an IBM 7094 Model II, an IBM 7044, and two CDC-6600's. These computers are being fully utilized, and the laboratory's requirements are expected to increase significantly over the next several years. In order to maintain computation capabilities in balance with requirements of the research program, an additional major system having three to four times the throughput of a CDC-6600 on the laboratory's problem mix should be acquired. At a minimum, the system should have the following technical capabilities: a) 256,000 words of addressable central memory, b) hardware commands for floating point arithmetic operation of 48 bit accuracy, c) an effective execution speed of 12 million instructions per second, and d) at least three data channels capable of simultaneously transmitting one million characters per second. The requirement for additional major computing capacity is based on the following programmatic criteria: 1. In order to undertake the analysis of much more complicated experiments, and to seek results which have increased statistical significance, a more powerful computer is required. Historically, small digital computers made it possible to analyze experiments containing a few thousand events. Typical experiments today contain several hunderd thousand events, and each of those events may be ten to twenty times more complicated to analyze than an event of ten years ago. 2. Theorists in both physics and nuclear chemistry are undertaking the analysis of more complicated theoretical models, and are employing more sophisticated numerical techniques. For example, very sophisticated nuclear structure models are currently being analyzed on the CDC-6600. Each of these programs uses the entire 128,000 word memory, and running time is on the order of one to two hours. Availability of richer and more detailed experimental data now will allow refinement and extension of the models; but the computations required are beyond the capacity of the 6600. 3. Investigation of magnetic fields in superconducting magnets is currently hampered, because the enormous volumes of calculations needed for 3dimensional magnets is beyond the capacity of the 6600. 4. Data concerning results of treatment of leukemia and acromegaly patients have been digitized, and an interactive program has been written which allows the testing of various hypotheses concerning the efficacy of treatments. The result is a marked increase in computational requirements of the Donner Laboratory. 5. The use of data collection facilities on-line to small computers has greatly increased the data output of many experiments. In the next few years an increasing number of these small computers will be run on-line to a major computer system. The increasing use of digital read-out spark chambers, which allow the scanning and measuring steps of an experiment to be by-passed, results in a very significant increase in the amount of data to be analyzed. Also, new techniques in large bubble chambers, such as fisheye optics, will place heavy demands on the central computing facility as the film becomes available. Failure to obtain an additional large-scale computer will therefore severely handicap many experimental and theoretical programs. It would not be possible to analyze more than a subset of data from most experiments and no more than partial results would be available for long periods, and publication of final results would be delayed. 6. In addition to satisfying in-house LRL needs, this system would also serve as a central facility for university high energy physics groups. Such a facility was recommended as a strong need for these university groups by the HEPAP subpanel on Computer Usage. 10. Will any one of the five proposed controlled thermonuclear research devices equal or surpass the achievements of the Soviet Tokamak-3 in temperature, density and confinement? If so, which devices? Although there exists some uncertainty in tokamak scaling laws, the following machines have a high probability of equaling or bettering the plasma parameters of the Soviet T-3 system: (1) The ORMAK I may achieve both higher temperature and confinement time, but the ORMAK II is expected to achieve significant improvements in all parameters. (2) The Model ST models the Soviet T-3 and therefore should achieve similar temperature, density, and confinement. (3) The Alcator is expected to achieve longer confinement, higher temperature, and higher density. (4) The Doublet II is a test of a uniquely new approach to tokamak systems which may achieve longer confinement time, although its value is best viewed in terms of plasma ß. If successful, a ẞ÷10-20% would be demonstrated-values of more than a factor of ten better than demonstrated in T-3. (5) The purpose of Texas Tokamak is to determine if turbulent heating can be utilized in tokamak systems. Its success would provide higher temperatures than here-to-fore achieved by the Soviets. 11. On several occasions in the recent past, this Committee has been told that the Stellarator-C at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory was an unequalled device in the U.S. controlled thermonuclear research program. Now AEC is proposing to spend several more years and much money to turn this device into a tokamak of unspecified vintage. a. Would not the Model C Stellarator be lost for all research while it is being modified and for stellarator research thereafter? b. How does AEC justify this action? c. If AEC dropped some of its 38 device support projects, could the funds be used effectively in a more concentrated stellarator and tokamak-type program? |