Hon. Mr. Fuqua July 18, 1985 



(-.gij, Page three 



The situation is quite different, however, in respect to 

 other nations. A participation of Canada or Japan in the 

 construction of the Superconducting Super Collider is possible. 

 It would be in the interest of these countries to do so since 

 it would make it easier for their scientists to participate 

 in research and it also may bring about orders to their 

 industries. But the amounts may not be of great significance. 

 Every dollar helps, however, and efforts should be made to 

 obtain their participation. It would also be heloful to 

 the idea of international collaboration. It should be added 

 that the HERA project is actively negotiating such participation 

 with Canada and other countries. 



To summarize my answer: International sharing of the cost 

 of big science facilities is a good thing. The only disadvantage 

 I can see, in principle, is that it increases the bureaucratic 

 efforts, it may slow down the construction to some extent. 

 Unfortunately, at the present moment, such cost sharing 

 between the most active regions in High Energy Physics — 

 Western Europe and United States — does not seem very probable. 

 However, cost sharing with Canada or Japan should be actively 

 explored. 



2. What would be the best worldwide configuration of high 



energy phvsics facilities from the point of view of science? 

 How might this best be determined? 



From the point of view of science, the best configuration 

 would be to have different frontier facilities in the two 

 main regions: United States and Western Europe. The contacts 

 between High Energy Physicists all over the world are 

 excellent. Therefore the determination of what should go where 

 is not a major problem. It will depend upon the enthusiasm 

 of the groups for different facilities. At present, for 

 example, it seems clear, that Euroce will have the largest 

 electron colliding facilities in LEP and HERA. The U.S. should ■ 

 not try to construct similar machines, except if some 

 completely new technology comes up. This may come with 

 the new innovative SLC (single beam collider) at SLAC which is 

 in a development stage. 



Therefore it is logical to have the SSC constructed in the 

 U.S. I am convinced that the Europeans will give up their 

 LHC (Proton collider in the LEP tunnel) if the United States 

 decides to begin soon the construction of the more powerful 

 Superconducting Super Collider, which would also benefit the 

 Europeans. 



3. Should some or all future "big science" facilities be 

 develooed on the basis of international cooperation? 



This question is answered by my comments to questions 1 and 2. 

 I certainly recommend detailed international discussions on 

 these subjects. One should also distinguish between inter- 

 national construction and international exploitation. So far 



