Welcome to the Australian Synchrotron Development Plan Homepage

This section of the Australian Synchrotron (AS) website provides information about the process of capability development at the synchrotron.

Current status

The Australian Synchrotron Development Plan (also known as Science Case 2 and ASDP) is currently under consideration by the Victorian and Australian Governments, along with the Australian Synchrotron’s business and investment cases. Discussion between the Victorian and Federal governments regarding ongoing funding for the AS is currently taking place and we are hopeful that a funding announcement will result. We do not yet know the extent to which any future announcement might include capital development funds. There are also other possible sources of capital funding that may become available.

In order to position the AS so that it can respond quickly to funding announcements or opportunities, the AS has continued to refine ideas and priorities for new facilities in a way that is consistent with the needs of the community. Accordingly, the AS has undertaken to allocate resources and to facilitate community engagement to develop the scientific and technical cases that were established in the ASDP.

To this end, the facility has undertaken to implement top-up mode of operation, identified as a priority accelerator development project.  By implementing the changes recommended by this project, it will be possible to maintain a constant current in the storage ring, thereby producing a more stable and consistent beam over longer periods. Top-up is one of a number of accelerator and major facility upgrades outlined in Science Case 2.

In addition, Beamline Scoping Groups (BSGs), drawn from the research community, have been established to further develop the scientific and technical cases for each of the beamlines identified for the first two phases of construction in the ASDP (phase 1 and phase 2 beamlines). Groups representing other projects have also been supported by the AS through the provision of information and feedback so that they can also develop their scientific and technical cases.   Detailed reports from 7 groups, including phase 1 and phase 2 beamlines, have now been delivered to the AS. These reports expand on the scientific case and need, as well as the technical requirements from the community for each of the relevant beamlines.

The AS will use the reports for the phase 1 and phase 2 beamlines as a basis for developing Conceptual Design Reports (CDRs). The AS will also provide information and feedback to allow other groups to develop CDRs. CDRs will form a key resource for our continued development and will help provide the detailed technical information required to assess and begin the build process for new beamlines. The CDRs are scheduled for completion around the end of 2011.

The technical aspects of the development of CDRs are being mediated by the Development Working Group, drawn from the AS, the Scientific Advisory Committee to the AS, and expert technical advisors.

The next step in developing the CDRs is to have an independent expert review of the technical approach chosen for each beamline in order to provide an additional assessment of whether the design approaches provided by the BSGs are valid.

Comments on the ASDP and future developments at the Australian Synchrotron may be directed to Andrew Peele or Kia Wallwork at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Click here to download a copy of Science Case 2 (pdf, 1.6 MB)

Frequently asked questions

1. My beamline or other project is not included in Science Case 2, is it worthwhile promoting it?
The default order for the new beamline projects is the phase 1, 2 and 3 staging set out in Science Case 2. However, it is anticipated that new funding opportunities and new scientific and technical developments may require a reassessment of this priority list. Accordingly, the more information about a new project the better. To this end Beamline Scoping Groups were asked to provide detailed reports for the phase 1 and 2 beamlines that refined the science case and provided a wealth of technical detail about the possible design of each of these new beamlines. That technical information is now being used by the AS, along with the advice of the Development Working Group, to develop Conceptual Design Reports that will provide detailed technical and costing information about the possible design of the phase 1 and 2 beamlines. However, the AS encourages other groups to follow the same planning pathway. At least one of the phase 3 beamlines also has an active community of stakeholders that has generated a detailed report and is working to develop a Conceptual Design Report. If you have a beamline project that is not currently being developed in this way and you think there are strong reasons why it might now be considered favourably in comparison to the projects listed in Science Case 2 then we encourage you to promote it.

2. What resources can I get to develop my project?
The AS is developing the phase 1 and 2 beamline projects to the stage of Conceptual Design Reports. For other projects the AS will provide the same scrutiny and advice from the Development Working Group, and any other expert review processes, and will provide the information required so that detailed reports and Conceptual Design Reports can be generated by the relevant stakeholders. However, due to limited resources the AS cannot offer the same level of design and expert resources as for the phase 1 and 2 projects.

3. What is the role of the Development Working Group?
The Development Working Group (DWG) is tasked with reviewing the technical aspects of the detailed reports. In this process the DWG is interacting with the relevant scoping groups, for instance through written questions or comments, to clarify and/or improve the detail of the reports. The DWG will subsequently continue to advise and assist the AS in the process of generating Conceptual Design Reports.

4. What level of input does the Development Working Group have in relation to the science case or other non-technical aspects of the proposals?
The DWG role is a technical one, it does not play a decision-making role. Its impact on the science case for a beamline comes from advice regarding technical decisions and the effect these will have on the experimental capabilities of a beamline. However, the DWG has many representatives with significant experience in the relevant aspects of the science of the proposed beamlines. Therefore, while comments or questions from the DWG may strictly be regarded as beyond its scope, they are offered as constructive feedback for the assistance of the relevant proponents. In any subsequent decision-making process DWG opinion regarding the merits of science or other non-technical aspects of a project case will be treated as beyond the scope of the advice requested from the DWG and not as providing representative comment from a body tasked with reviewing the science aspects of the beamline case (such as those convened during the Science Case 2 process).

5. Isn’t the distinction between Science input and technical input somewhat arbitrary?
To some extent, yes. Indeed part of the assessment process of Science Case 2 included a consideration of technical feasibility, albeit recognising that the proposals had provided very limited technical detail. The Concept Design Report uses decisions based on science merits to then develop more detailed technical plans. The important thing to note is that the ultimate decision process will take a holistic approach where relevant scientific, technical, financial and other considerations are taken into account.

6. What does the ASDP process look like?