Update on APS-DPP
Community Planning Process
Scott BaalrudNate Ferraro
Lauren Garrison
Nathan Howard
Carolyn Kuranz
John Sarff
Earl Scime (emeritus)
Wayne Solomon

University of Iowa
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Michigan
University of WisconsinWest Virginia University
General Atomics

Goals●To produce strategic recommendations for each of four topical areas and four cross-cutting areas,
generated from community input●

Provide both near-term actionable recommendations and a long-term strategic outlook (strategicplan), highlighting opportunities for US leadership●

To the extent possible, to prioritize among these recommendations with community consensus●

To deliver these recommendations to FESAC by March, 2020

We fully recognize the opportunity that this activity represents for FES, and we are enthusiastic to makethis process successful!
2Organizational Structure
Co-chairs

The Program Committee isorganized in subgroups to produce
recommendations in eight topicaland cross-cutting areas

Theory & Computation
Measurement &Diagnostics

Program Committee

Enabling Technology
Workforce Development

MFE

FusionMaterials& TechHEDP

Discovery3

Program Committee
Magnetic Fusion Energy

Fusion Materials and Technology

Ted Biewer, ORNLDan Brunner, CFS
Cami Collins, GA
Brian Grierson, PPPL
Walter Guttenfelder, PPPL
Chris Hegna, Wisconsin
Chris Holland, UCSD
Jerry Hughes, MIT
Aaro Jarvinen, LLNL
Richard Magee, TAE
Saskia Mordijck, William & Mary
Gerald Navratil, Columbia
Craig Petty, GA
Matt Reinke, ORNLUri Shumlak, Washington

John Caughman, ORNLDavid Donovan, UTK
Ken Hammond, MissouriPaul Humrickhouse, INL
Robert Kolasinski, Sandia
Ane Lasa, ORNL
Richard Nygren, Sandia
Wahyu Setawan, PNNL
Steven Zinkle, UTK
George Tynan, UCSD

4

Program Committee
High Energy Density Physics

Discovery Plasma Science

Alex Areﬁev, UCSD
Todd Ditmire, UT Austin
Forrest Doss, LANL
Sean Finnegan, LANL
Arianna Gleason, Stanford/SLAC
Stephanie Hansen, SNLLouisa Pickworth, LLNL
Jorge Rocca, Colorado State
Derek Schaeffer, Princeton
Cliff Thomas, LLE

Daniel Den Hartog, Wisconsin
Dan Dubin, UCSD
Hantao Ji, Princeton
Yevgeny Raitses, PPPLDavid Schaffner, Bryn Mawr
Steven Shannon, NC StateDan Sinars, SNLStephen Vincena, UCLA

5

Program Committee is Committed to Success●

The program committee has been putting in a tremendous amount of work to enable a successful
outcome in a short amount of time●

Weekly meetings of the program committees in the main topical areas, even twice-weekly
meetings among MFE and FM&T●

Frequent Expert Group and Cross-cut Group meetings (~weekly)●

Periodic check-ins with David Newman and Don Rej●

Weekly meeting of all co-chairs○○

Biweekly meetings with Facilitator
Almost daily meetings among MFE co-chairs

Community Outreach●Announcement describing process and seeking program committee nominations sent to APS-DPP,
ANS, IEEE, HEDSA, UFA, ECFS, and USBPO mailing lists.
○●

Google group○○●

Other announcements from topical areas are also often sent to some of these lists, as appropriate

Acts as mailing list for interested individuals
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dpp-cpp

Website○https://sites.google.com/pppl.gov/dpp-cpp

7

Avenues for Community Input
Advocacy Groups

Expert Groups●

Self-organized groups of community
members (not led by Program Committee)●

Groups of technical experts, led by Program
Committee members●

Provide input to process by submitting
informational white papers or initiative
proposals●

Open to participation from any and allinterested community member●

Provide community review of initiative
proposals

HEDP and DPS Expert Groups
Hydrodynamics: HED Hydrodynamics, Magnetized
HEDP, Laboratory Astrophysics
High Intensity Laser Plasmas: Nonlinear Optics and Laser
Plasma Interactions, Relativistic HED and High Field
Science, Intense Beams and Particle Acceleration
HED Atomic Physics, Warm Dense Matter and Materials,
Nuclear Physics
Theory and Computational Modeling
IFE Driver and Reactor Technology and High Yield Target
Physics
Facilities and Diagnostics: Laser Facilities, Pulsed Power
Facilities, X-ray Light Sources, Radiation Sources

Discovery Plasma Science
Create Disruptive Technologies
Understand the Plasma Universe
Advance the Foundational FrontierMFE and FM&T Expert Groups
Magnetic Fusion Energy

Fusion Materials and Technology

Boundary & Divertor Plasma Physics
Transport & Conﬁnement
Energetic Particles
Transients
Scenarios
Global Context and US Leadership

Fusion Materials
Blanket, Tritium, and Systems
Plasma Material Interaction & Plasma Facing Components
Magnets & Technology
Measurements & Diagnostics

Cross-cuts●

Four cross-cutting groups:○○○○

Enabling technology
Theory and Computation
Measurements and Diagnostics
Workforce Development●

The cross-cuts are the “glue” that unites the topical areas in FES●

Joint meetings of cross-cutting groups will become more important as we approach “Snowmass”

Events Since Last FESAC Meeting
FESAC
Rockville, MD

Mar

Sherwood Town Hall
Princeton, NJ

Apr

FM&T Webinars

May

HEDP Webinar

Jun

SOFE Town Hall

MFE/FM&T Workshop

Jacksonville, FL

Madison, WIJul

DPS/NSF Facilities
Workshop
College Park, MD

TTF Town Hall
Austin, TX

Aug

Sep

HEDP IFE Town Hall
HEDP Workshop

Albuquerque, NM

College Park, MD

MFE Webinar
HEDP/NAS Meeting
Rochester, NY

ICOPS/NAS Meeting
Orlando, FL

DPS Workshop
Madison, WI

Planning Process Moving into a New Stage●

First stage of community input was to gather community input on research opportunities andcritical scientiﬁc gaps○○●

Generally strong engagement from the community; over 200 initiatives, whitepapers, or revisions have been
submitted
To the extent practical, we have been building on previous community planning activities and reports

Next stage will be to assemble plans and get community feedback and buy-in○○

Program Committee will be compiling these plans from community input
Consensus is critical. Stakeholders will be given ample opportunity for feedback.

HEDP UpdateCollege Park Workshop - HEDP●●●

HEDP 1st workshop was a success!
> 100 participants in College Park, > 30 remote
Initiatives were presented and discussed in expert group meetings

Summary report on the ﬁrst workshop:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fv5r9c2whTbSVJt6lLlNekYftVvqU6sh

Agenda - Day 1 and Day 2
Plenary Session

Breakout Session

Overview

Finish “lightning talks”“Lightning Talks”
Breakout Sessions

Finalize key opportunities of
initiatives“Lightning Talks” (~ 1 hour)

Plenary Session

Discussion (~2 hours)

Area Summary Talks

Plenary
Discussion Summaries

Breakout Sessions
Fundamentals I (Hydrodynamics, Magnetized HEDP, Laboratory Astrophysics,
Computation I)
Fundamentals II (Nuclear Physics, Warm Dense Matter & Materials, HED Atomic
Physics)
Fundamentals III (Nonlinear optics and Laser Plasma Interactions, Relativistic HED
and High Field Science, Intense Beams and Particle Acceleration, Computation II)
Facilities and Diagnostics (Laser Facilities, Pulsed Power Facilities, X-ray Lightsources, Radiation sources, Enabling Technology, and Diagnostics)
Inertial Fusion Energy (Driver and Reactor Technology and High Yield Target
Physics)

Discussion Rules for Breakout Sessions●●●●

Allow everyone a chance to speak
Listen respectfully, without interrupting
Criticize ideas, not people
Be creative and have fun!

When you disagree, back up to a broader idea that you can agree onSummary Presentations and Reports●●●●

Identify Key Questions in area
Identify Programmatic Benefits
Discuss Execution and Timeline
Discuss cross-cutting opportunities within HEDP and FES

Summary report has similar format

The ﬁrst HEDP workshop was a success!
●
●
●

●

> 100 participants in College Park, > 30 remote
We also had an IFE Townhall in Albuquerque in August
We generated initial “tent-pole” initiatives from workshop
discussions and output forming a bold vision for the future of HEDP
within Fusion Energy Sciences.
2nd workshop will be Nov 12 - 14, 2019 in Palo Alto, CADraft “Tent-Pole” Initiatives
These initiatives all include experimental, diagnostic, and modeling aspect:
1. LaserNet US - A high intensity laser network for frontier plasma science inthe US
2. Inertial Fusion Energy Science and Technology Program
3. Frontier HED Science on the LCLS MEC Instrument
4. Magnetized HED Science and Pulsed Power Technology
5. Particle and Radiation Sources

HEDP Webinars prior to 2nd workshop
We will hold two webinars to discuss the initial “tent-pole” initiatives on
October 29th and November 4th.
Community members will also have the opportunity to present new
initiatives or speak to speciﬁc “tent-pole” initiatives

2nd HEDP Workshop
The 2nd workshop will be held
November 12-14, 2019 in Menlo
Park, CA at the SLAC National
Accelerator Laboratory
Goal: Consensus on key scientiﬁcopportunities in HEDPDraft Agenda
Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Initiative Overview

Review of science reports

Cross-cutting plenary session

Initiative breakout session

Facility/diagnostics breakout session

Initiative plenary session

Facility/diagnostics plenary session

Moderated discussion of HED
strategic vision for FES

Cross-cutting breakout session

IFE town hall

DPS Update

Madison Workshop
●
●
●
●
●

~35 attendees in the areas of DPS~25 initiative proposals
Many excellent presentations spanning Discovery Plasma Science“Report on Reports” session: review of recent DPS community planning activities
Initiatives were presented and discussed in expert group meetings
Summary report including an organizational plan and calendar of events:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f-JhMXaIYX9YIkre4dz39gL1m7Yxx2aHH80-r24AVg4/edit

AgendaDay 1●

Report on Reports
○
○
○
○
○

●

Frontiers of Plasma Science (Skiff)
NSF User Facilities (Scime)
Enabling a Future Based on
Electricity ... (Kushner)
WOPA (Zweibel)
NAS 2020 (Kushner)

Group Discussion○

Expert Group meetings

Day 2
●

Joint MFE/FM&T/DPS Cross cut
session○●●5 speakers

Cross-Cut Breakout Sessions

Initiative Presentations○●

Broad Overview talks of DPS○●

4 speakers

Day 3

Expert group meetings○○●

15 presentations
Identiﬁcation of gaps
Evaluations

Full workshop discussion

DPS: Revised Expert Groups
Previous Expert Groups
High Energy Density Lab Astrophysics
Solar and Magnetospheric Lab Astrophysics
Low Temperature Plasmas
Single Component Plasmas
Dusty Plasmas
TheoryPlasma-Surface Interactions
Laser Plasma Interactions

New Expert Groups
Create Disruptive Technologies
Understand the Plasma Universe
Advance the Foundational Frontier

Create Disruptive Technologies●●

Topical Group Leads: Steve Shannon (primary), Yvgeny Raitses (secondary)
Example topics: Plasma-based medicine, plasma-based chemical processing, plasma-basedmaterials processing, microelectronics, neutron sources, plasma-based environmental technology,
plasma-based biotechnology, plasma photonics, plasma-based agricultural technologies, etc.
Low-temperature atmospheric-pressure plasmas

Chunqi Jiang

Plasma Physics Challenges in Low Temperature Plasma Chemical
Conversion for Environment, Biotechnology and Energy

Mark KushnerLight sources from Laser-Plasma Accelerators

Jeroen van Tilborg

Capturing Appropriate “Strength of Coupling” Knowledge Base for Reactive
Low Temperature Plasmas

Katharina Stapelmann

National Initiative in Low Temperature Plasma

Philip Efthimion

Understand the Plasma Universe●●

Topical Group Leads: Hantao Ji (primary), David Schaffner (secondary), Stephen Vincena(secondary)
Example topics: Magnetic reconnection, plasma turbulence, solar wind, coronal heating,astrophysical jets, collisionless shocks, etc
A Large Scale Turbulent Plasma Wind Tunnel

Michael Brown

Initiative: Facility for the study of Astrophysical Processes

Walter Gekelman

The Plasma Universe Initiative (PUI)

Hantao Ji

Efficient X-ray detection at high energies (>10 keV)

Sabrina Nagel

GDT Volumetric Fusion Neutron Source

Cary Forest

Advance the Foundational Frontier●●

Topical Group Leads: Daniel Dubin (primary), Daniel Sinars (secondary), Daniel Den Hartog(secondary)
Example topics: Strongly coupled plasmas, ultracold neutral plasmas, sheaths, non-neutral
plasmas, dusty plasmas, quantum plasmas
Thoughts on Discovery Science: June 24, 2019

Paul Bellan

Microprobe quad chart

Michael Brown

Capturing Appropriate “Strength of Coupling” Knowledge Base for
Reactive Low Temperature Plasmas

Katharina Stapelmann

Ultracold Neutral Plasmas for Controllable and Precision Plasma
Physics

Jacob Roberts

Controlling charging in dusty plasmas

Edward Thomas, Jr.

Sheath Physics Initiative

Greg Severn

DPS: Plans leading to Snowmass●

Expert groups will articulate the major science questions to be addressed in each category○○●

To be decided during expert group meetings
Follow from initiatives that support advocate for these priorities

Program committee will develop a draft before snowmass○○○

Priority science questions
Priority initiatives
Other recommendations

Rationale for organization/lessons from workshop●●

Excellent science is happening across the diverse range of topics of DPS
Our main challenge has been to get people to participate○○●

To address this, we have chosen a different format for our fall workshops
○
○

●
●

Fatigue: Many recent planning meetings
Ongoing Plasma 2020 Decadal survey
4 Web-based workshops
3 Forums at major fall conferences

Increase participation by lowering the barrier to entry
Bring the planning process to the meetings where people are already congregating

DPS: Calendar of Events
1. DPS-Wide Web Meeting(October 10)

3. Deadline for new or revised initiatives(November 8)2.

4.

Forums at fall conferences

Web-based expert group meetings

APS-DPP (Oct. 22, 7:45pm)

Create disruptive technologies (Nov 22, 2:00pm)

AVS (Oct. 22, 7:00pm)

Understand the Plasma Universe (Nov 25, 2:00pm)

GEC (Oct. 29, 7:00pm)

Advance the Foundational Frontier (Nov 26, 2:00pm)

5. “Snowmass” (January)

MFE / FM&T Update

Madison Workshop●

July 22–26 at the University of Madison, WI●

Goal: to discuss, debate, and evaluate the initiatives that Advocates put on the table●~170 attendees, >100 unique white papers, ~60 presentations (plenary or in topical areas)●

All initiative proposals were discussed in Expert Groups, Cross-Cutting groups, or plenary sessions●

All initiative proposals received written feedback from one or more expert groups by Sep. 1●

Presentations, scribe notes from discussion sessions, and feedback to Advocacy Groups are all
publically available on DPP-CPP website [https://sites.google.com/pppl.gov/dpp-cpp]

Agenda: Presentations (morning), breakouts (afternoon)
MondayTheme Ia: Identifying the Elements for a
Balanced MFE Program in the 2020s

Theme Ib: Materials and Technology
Future Directions

Theme II: Science and Technology Challenges on the Path to Fusion
Tuesday

Power Handling

Heating andSustainment

Modeling and
DesignMaterials, Blankets,
Diagnostics

Wednesday

Theme III: Cross-cutting Opportunities for the Fusion Energy Sciences
Theme IV: The Role of Public/Private Partnership on the Path to Fusion

Thursday

Theme V: The Path to a Fusion Pilot Plant

FridayTheme VI: Summary of Workshop Accomplishments and Moving Forward

Observations from Madison●

Encouraging show of engagement and enthusiasm from MFE/FM&T community○

Private industry was also engaged—presentations from INFUSE, ARPA-E, and Fusion Industry Association;strong attendance & participation from some companies●

People generally liked the expert group discussion format for evaluating initiatives●

Interaction between MFE and FM&T sparked many new ideas and discussions●

People liked Madison workshop, but want the next workshop to be different○○

Next workshop needs to focus on assembling a strategic plan
More plenary sessions—get people all focused on the same set of high level questions

Activities Before Knoxville Workshop

EGs Build Elements and Blocks from Initiatives
Block #2

Block #1
Initiative
Strategic
Element

Strategic
Element
Initiative

Strategic
Element

Strategic
Element

Strategic
Element
Initiative

Strategic
Element

Strategic Blocks
represent different
approaches to closing
all the gaps identiﬁedby each Expert GroupExpert Groups Are Deﬁning Strategic Elements●

Strategic Element: a set of one or more initiatives that, in combination, seek to address a commongap (or set of gaps) in a coherent way
○
○
○

●

Example: “Solve tokamak disruptions” Strategic Element
○
○
○

●

Will reference all relevant initiative proposals (doesn’t need to endorse them)
Broad initiatives can be part of multiple strategic elements
Can include sequencing, where appropriate

Initiative(s) to develop new techniques for mitigation
Initiative(s) for targeted modeling activities
Initiative(s) for collaboration with international facilities to access speciﬁc conditions

Where initiatives overlap, extract or generalize common elements that have consensus support

Expert Groups Are Deﬁning “Strategic Blocks”●

Strategic Block: a set of Strategic Elements that are needed to close all of the gaps identiﬁed by an
Expert Group.
○
○
○

●

Example: Strategic Block for Transients EG
○
○
○

●

Multiple strategic blocks can be generated by an EG, representing different approaches to closing the gaps
This is similar to “Strategic Approach” as deﬁned by WG1.
Here, Strategic Blocks are explicitly organized by Expert Group

Strategic Element to solve tokamak disruptions
Strategic Element to quantify MHD limits in Stellarators
Strategic Element to solve ELMs

If gaps can’t be closed by the submitted Initiatives alone, EGs should deﬁne necessary Elements
themselves in an open, transparent, and generic way [e.g. ELM suppression]PC Will Draft Strategic Framework(s) Before Knoxville●

Framework consists of science drivers and associated candidate recommendations based in parton the strategic blocks generated within the EGs
○
○

●
●
●

PC will work across EG boundaries to make a more coherent organization
Continue to draw upon (and cite) the full range of submitted initiatives

All recommendations will be traceable to community discussions and reports
Identiﬁes future decision points and possible areas of contention
Summary and “opening presentation” distributed to community
MFE / FM&T Strategic Plan
ahead of Knoxville workshop○

Forming the basis of discussions and polling activities to be
conducted at Knoxville.

The framework will form the basis of the strategic plan emerging outof Knoxville discussions and drafted following the workshop

Science Driver

Science Driver

Strategic
Element

Strategic
Element

Strategic
Element

Strategic
Element

EGs Will Review Framework(s) Before Knoxville●

Framework(s) developed by PC will be posted publicly for review before Knoxville●This will give opportunity for “sanity check”○○●

Have we missed anything crucial?
Is there anything that will impede consensus?

Expert Groups will be explicitly asked to review content before Knoxville○○○

Ensure that Framework(s) cover all gaps
Ensure the accuracy of technical statements
Ensure that content is traceable to community discussions and does not contradict the consensus of the EG

Knoxville Workshop●

Nov 18--22 at UT Conference Center in Knoxville, TN○●Plenary presentations and breakout sessions on
○
○
○
○

●

Register now! https://utconferences.eventsair.com/mfefmt

high-level questions
framework(s)areas of contention
recommendations

Goals:○○○○

A set of near term, actionable recommendations for pursuingresearch opportunities
A long-range vision for the path to fusion energy(Maybe) coarse prioritization or sequencing of recommendations
We will go as far as time and consensus allow.

Forging a Strategic Plan

Upcoming Events
HEDP Workshop

APS Town Halls

Menlo Park, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL

PC Writing
RetreatReport to FESACGEC Town Hall
College Station, TX
Oct

FESAC

Nov

DPS Meeting
WebinarRockville, MD

Dec

Jan

MFE/FM&T Workshop
Knoxville, TN

Focus Groups
USBPO
WebinarDPS Expert Group Meetings
Webinars

Feb“Snowmass”

“Snowmass”●

Community-wide meeting to combine input from topical areas into a coherent plan for FES and to
get community feedback and buy-in○●

Topical areas are expected to have well-formed plans coming into Snowmass

Targeting week of Jan. 13, 2020○○

To facilitate participation by avoiding conﬂicts with other major conferences and academic calendars
To remain on track to deliver report to FESAC before March, 2020●

Saralyn Stewart is providing logistical support. Presently negotiating with hotels.

●

Program committee will likely have a retreat in Dec. to set agenda and prepare input●

Different from previous “Snowmass” meetings—this will (probably) not be for downselecting
among proposals for new facilities.

Facilitator is Assisting with Strategic Planning●

We are working with Laurie Moret to assist with strategic Planning○●

She will be running sessions to train PC members○○●

How to moderate discussion sessions effectively
How to organize and structure strategic plans

She will be running focus group sessions to get feedback from interest groups○○●

Professional facilitator; worked with APS to develop corporate strategic plan

Early career; underrepresented demographic groups; university scientists; etc.
Do these groups feel that they are involved in the process and that their concerns are being addressed? Wewant to know this before we draft any plans or recommendations.

She will be present at our upcoming workshops to help moderate discussions and advise the PC

Challenges●

We anticipate challenges ahead, but we are optimistic that
we can overcome them.

●

How will we gauge / ensure consensus?

●

How will we create a coherent plan?

●

How will we balance the Energy and Science missions of
FES?

Gauging and Ensuring Consensus●

What is consensus? A plan that everyone can support, formed in a process where everyone’s
voice was heard.
○○●

Doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with everything.
Consensus is not the tyranny of the majority.

To facilitate consensus, it is our job to:
○
○
○
○
○
○

Ensure that all stakeholders are participating.
Give the community many opportunities for input and feedback.
Clearly reﬂect the community’s input in the recommendations.
Understand and address the concerns of interest groups (focus groups).
Use polling (not voting) to document and gauge consensus as we proceed.
Communicate that this is not a zero-sum game. Consensus will beneﬁt us all.

Making a Coherent Plan for FES●

Presently, topical areas are functioning mostly independently○

Close interaction between MFE and FM&T areas●

Different topical areas will (hopefully) be bringing consensus recommendations into Snowmass●“Snowmass” meeting will be the opportunity to merge plans into coherent plan for FES●

Our goal is that all stakeholders will be able to understand and support the recommendations fromall topical areas●

Cross-cutting groups are set up to identify challenges and opportunities across entire FES scope

Balancing Energy and Science●

MFE and FM&T areas are fundamentally driven by an energy goal. This has been underscored by
the recent National Academies report.

●

HEDP and DPS are more driven by scientiﬁc exploration, but also have signiﬁcant practicalapplication.

●

There is strong desire within the community that our recommendations reﬂect the energy missionof MFE/FM&T. We will strive to address the scientiﬁc and technological challenges inherent tothat mission.

●

We will not cross-prioritize among MFE/FM&T, HEDP, and DPS. These areas have somewhat
distinct goals, and prioritization among these goals should be set by DOE or Congress.

Summary●

We are pleased with our rate of progress and the level of engagement from the community
○
○
○

●

There are challenges remaining, but we are optimistic for a successful outcome○○●

We have received a tremendous amount of input from most areas of the community
The ﬁrst round of workshops succeeded in generating the discussion and output that we wanted
We are entering a new stage of the planning process, where we will be writing plans and getting community
feedback and buy-in

We are working with a professional facilitator to help us chart a successful course
We are drawing on the experiences of other planning activities to guide our process

We remain on track to deliver a consensus report to FESAC before March 2020

Thank You!