Organization for Investigation of BPX options and Snowmass process:

• A model for developing community consensus, scoping studies and finally advocacy of a given project is available from High Energy Physics. With humble approaches, cap in hand if you will, we should seek the advice of the High Energy Physics community. From my supercollider experience I can clearly state that the whole high energy physics community was proud of having successfully initiated such a large construction at a time when 10 billion dollars really meant a real lot of money. It may be advisable to include an influential HEP individual in this group or even in the Snowmass panel.

• Also, HEP community in its decision making process includes leaders in engineering issues and works closely with machine designers in coming up with a basic concept, much before a conceptual engineering design is obtained. The engineers of fusion community have too long been "downstairs" and as suggested by another contributor to this page, the engineers and information technologists should be brought on board right away. However, there would be a clear bias from engineers since they would wish for engineering challenges and therefore may favor a large machine.

• A high degree of documentation should be mandated in Snowmass studies, because ideas are the more valuable commodity, particularly at this time.

I realize that this is the most challenging issue and this group is already taking some specific steps. I would like to add the following comments and suggestions:

• The consensus building requires first the involvement and a firm commitment from the leadership. I would frankly state that for too long fusion research has been affected significantly by parochial interest. I plead with the leaders of fusion energy science, plasma physics, fusion technology and particularly the Department of Energy to commit to bringing a consensus within one year. (Even one year, it appears will be late, since the ITER process needs a shorter time scale for decision making). Without this commitment from the leadership, no effort will be fruitful. Perhaps the community issues group can presume to instigate the leadership and provide them with necessary tools. Therefore the first goal of snowmass should be to get a written commitment from the leadership as above.

• The consensus has to be based on the simple fact that we have made significant progress in fusion and fusion science over many decades and it is high time we made a foot print in world history with a demonstration of ignition or steady state power or with an earth-shaking discovery in fusion plasma science. I hope that it is not already too late, but without such milestones, the markers that point to notable progress are lacking in fusion research.

• A corollary of this basis is that the leadership should declare unequivocally that Snowmass is and will be the prime if not the only process of negotiating a consensus and initiating action. This commitment alone will invigorate Snowmass participation significantly.

• While at the present time the role of the Community Issues group appears to be limited to listening, poll taking and perhaps a mild persuasion, this group should be vested with specific executive powers in building consensus. This harks back to the commitment from the leadership.

• Specifically for the upcoming Snowmass meeting, this group should build a hierarchy of questions, starting from the question - do we believe that fusion research is important? - to the question - who would like to do what?.

• A time table for deciding on BPX should be set in this Snowmass meeting.

• Snowmass is setup to consider four options, (1) ITER (2) FIRE (3) Ignitor (4) do nothing. Snowmass should invite proposals on a preferred option and mode of participation (much like scientific proposals) from individuals and whittle the number down to 5 or 6. The proposals should include how the BPX would be built and how the basic sciences program will be funded. Finally, we need to elect protagonists for each of these proposals and have them present their proposals to the fusion plasma leadership (FESAC Action Panel, for example) and come up with a solution.

• If we presume that the FESAC action panel is the vehicle for translating community's wishes into action for carrying out a parallel BPX program and a robust basic sciences program, it follows that the panel should develop some muscle in anticipation of the required effort. The FESAC panel should energetically work on getting a commitment from the government that its wishes will be translated into government action without significant modification.

• It is even conceivable that the FESAC action panel should become something else which has more than an advisory function, such as a steering committee. This committee would also be an advocacy group for the fusion community, representing the community's wishes to the congress and the executive and negotiating with international partners.

• Finally, if I may wish for the farthest moons, a consortium of science and technology communities should work on getting guarantees for long term funding of large approved projects and prevent it from being subject to whims of politics.

There are three basic issues confronting and dividing the community:

• Would BPX threaten the vigor of the basic plasma science program and if separately funded from additional money, would any BPX cost overrun threaten the basic science program?

• Should US fusion community sign on to a US machine or an international machine?

• Finally which machine is technically/scientifically superior for the stated goals of the US program?

• How can University researchers participate in a large facility specifically an international facility?

From a pure science/engineering perspective the tension between a basic program and a BPX can be resolved.

• First the exception: Study of alternates, where funds should be provided to continue this research in a fashion unaffected by a BPX experiment. The potential for a breakthrough is a low probability but is low risk/high reward which justifies the continuation of these approaches. The alternates are essential to nurture independent and innovative groups. This effort can be constrained to be within 5% of the fusion budget.

• With a well designed and well instrumented BPX, the addressing of basic plasma issues can be maximized. In admitting this, a liberal definition should be applied on what constitutes basic plasma science. The questions that cannot be addressed in the BPX (a) may not be relevant (b) may not be urgently needed to be addressed and can be postponed to another machine when funding streams permit new machine(s).

• Only urgent basic science issues, that cannot be addressed in the BPX should be addressed in the basic sciences program. An analysis of the urgency of these basic plasma questions is required. The determination of the urgency should be based on the following:

• Can the resolution of the basic science issue affect the design, operation and performance of the BPX expeditiously.
• Can the resolution of the basic science issue add significantly to the understanding of plasma physics and nuclear fusion and affect strategies within a period TBD?
• Can the discovery of the basic science phenomenon be highly prestigious?
• Does the resolution of the basic science issue have major industrial/market applications within the next 10 years?
• Does the study of the basic science phenomenon have significant educational/training benefit that is not available elsewhere.

• The basic science part of the BPX funding should be clearly marked and the sum of the BPX portion of the basic science funding and direct basic science funding should be fixed at an agreed level with allowance for inflation.

• In order for the above proposal to work, the cost of BPX cannot be allowed to overrun so that the basic science program funding can be guaranteed (within the vagaries of government cuts from agreed upon plans). This requires that BPX be built with an international collaboration where US would provide a significant portion, but fixed dollars. All cost overruns should be borne by the partners. There are perhaps alternatives to this proposal where contingency funding would be available in advance and unspent dollars would be spent in basic plasma science program.

• From a technical point of view, an international program is much better for several reasons, (a) an international program would make it difficult for congress to make ad hoc funding cuts so that we would be assured of completing the construction (b) my ITER experience clearly demonstrated to me that our international partners will help us in times of difficulty since we have a stake in each others success (c) the atmosphere is ripe for more global involvement not only for the rich nations but we can expect participation from a larger number of countries.

• It is conceivable that some fusion community members are uncomfortable with having to deal with foreign collaborators and would therefore avoid foreign collaborations. From my experience, this is only born of laziness and can be overcome. However, there are some genuine concerns such as speed of decision making and perhaps some national interest that might be jeopardized. But, the overall benefits from an international collaborations make it worthwhile that we struggle and even lose some of those battles.

This is a topic for other groups to discuss but this Community Issues group should impress upon the technical merit investigators that intangibles, such as problem-solving skills, availability of specific components/materials should be taken into account.

University Participation in a large (international) facility:

There is perhaps a well placed concern about how University researchers in the US can participate in a large experimental facility, particularly in an international facility. But there is a ton of experience in organizing this. For decades, High Energy Physics personnel have been participating in Detector collaborations abroad and there is a working model available there. In addition, at a smaller level, the rather fruitful and sometimes   remarkable collaboration of Universities in astronomy and astrophysics observations is an inspiring example.