1. Plasma 2010. Co-Chairs. Steve Cowley, UCLA. John Peoples. Fermilab.

2. Introduction Study is just begun. Similar aims to 1995 report -- We are looking for advice from you. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/PLS2010.html Inclusive approach -- involve the community. Opportunity to set the course. Many good recent reports will help. I will talk about: –Aims, –Organization of the committee, the study and the report,

3. Aims. 1.What are the scientific highlights of the decade? 2.Scientific opportunities. What are the great plasma science questions? What would be the impact of their solution? 3.How important is Plasma science for the national priorities? (Drivers) Economic. National security. Cultural (scientific). 4.What is the best strategy to answer these questions? Is the current strategy working? Are resources distributed wisely? Is the supply of talented people adequate? WORKABLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

4. Committee. Magnetic Fusion: leader: James Callen, University of Wisconsin at Madison William Dorland, University of Maryland at College Park Jonathan E. Menard, Princeton University John C. Peoples, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Co-Chair High Energy Density: leader: David Hammer, Cornell University Max Tabak, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Todd Ditmire, University of Texas at Austin Lia Merminga, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Basic Plasma Science: leader: Clifford M. Surko, University of California at San Diego Walter Gekelman, University of California at Los Angeles Erich P. Ippen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Astro-Space Plasma: leader: Kristina A. Lynch, Dartmouth College Eliot Quataert, UC Berkeley Steven C. Cowley, University of California at Los Angeles,, Co-Chair Low Temperature Plasma: leader:Mark J. Kushner, Iowa State University Steven Girshick, University of Minnesota Timothy J. Sommerer, General Electric, Inc. Franklin R. Chang-Diaz, NASA Johnson Space Center PEOPLE ARE ON MORE THAN ONE SUB-COMMITTEE.

5. Dear Colleague, The Plasma 2010 committee — the decadal study of plasma science conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academies — is soliciting your input. The next decade will be, as you are no doubt aware, a challenging and exciting one for plasma science. The study is examining the scientific achievements and opportunities in the field as a whole. The scientific scope of the study stretches from economically important industrial plasmas to the highly relativistic plasmas in astrophysics. The 1995 NRC Plasma Science Report had similar (but not identical) goals to the present study. We would, of course, welcome your opinion on any aspect of plasma science and its practice. However, we particularly would like input on the following very basic questions: What were the most notable scientific highlights and advances in plasma science over the past decade? What plasma science problems do you consider most likely to yield exciting and important results in the next decade? Why? Do you think the current strategy to support the investigation of these problems is correct? Are there alternative methodologies that should be considered? If so, what are they? What opportunities exist for applications of plasma science to other fields? What are some of the emerging connections between plasma science and other fields? Are we educating the next generation of plasma scientists well? How could it be improved? What advice would you give to the panel? Thank you for your help. Comments may be sent to plasma2010@nas.edu or entered into our publicly accessible web at URL http://plasma2010.blogspot.com. Sincerely, Steve Cowley and John Peoples, Co-Chairs, on behalf of the Plasma 2010 Committee

6. National Priority - Scientific Priority - Strategy An example, Magnetic Reconnection Magnetic reconnection provides an example of how we may organize a strategy behind scientific questions. Science Question(s). How fast is reconnection? Under what conditions? Where does it happen? How does it produce energetic particles? National Priorities. 1.Fusion plasma stability, Higher performance. Economic. 2.Space weather, prediction and understanding of sub-storms and solar flares. Economic. 3.Dynamics of Astrophysical accretion discs launching of jets. Cultural/Scientific. 4.Etc. Strategy. Program to investigate basic question (%?) + program to investigate application (%?)

7. Final Thought. The 1995 NRC Plasma Science report made a significant impact by focusing on one issue -- the need to revitalize basic plasma science. The report recommended a modest increase in funding. In response DOE and NSF created a joint initiative in basic plasma science. The key, I believe, was a workable recommendation that the government could respond to positively.

8. Charge 1. Assess the progress and achievements of plasma science over the past decade. 2. Identify the new opportunities and the compelling science questions for plasma science, frame the outlook for the future, and place the field in the context of physics as a whole. 3. Evaluate the opportunities and challenges for the applications of plasma science to fusion and other fields. 4. Offer guidance to the government research programs and the scientific communities aimed at addressing these challenges and realizing these opportunities.

9. Critical Period for Plasma Science. 11 years of building ITER -- probably. Need to preserve science program in budget squeezed by ITER. The study must work with this reality. NIF coming online for HED physics. Laser plasma Physics has already been squeezed to build NIF. DOD (ONR) got out of the field. Computational initiatives from government. Is plasma ready to take advantage? NASA priorities have shifted away from science. Critical need for good planning.

10. Approach. We must show how progress on fundamental plasma science questions advances national priorities and we must examine strategies to make such progress.