Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:31:14 +0100 (BST) From: David Miller To: Hwanbae Park , Harry Weerts , "Jaros, John A." , yannis.karyotakis@lapp.in2p3.fr, brient , Dan Peterson , hongjoo@mail.knu.ac.kr, Ray Frey , Takeshita Tohru , Wolfgang Lohmann , yasuhiro.sugimoto@kek.jp, aihara@phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp, Chris Damerell , Henri Videau , Ron Settles , Mark Thomson , "Wilson, Graham Wallace" , mtronan@lbl.gov, MBattaglia@lbl.gov, Dean Karlen , Yee Bob Hsiung , Jim Brau , "Yamamoto, Hitoshi -- Hitoshi Yamamoto" , oreglia@uchicago.edu, Hitoshi Yamamoto , ties.behnke@desy.de cc: LC World Wide Co-com -- Akiya Miyamoto , Andreas Kronfeld , atul.gurtu@cern.ch, ChanGen Yang , francois.richard@cern.ch, gurtu@mailhost.tifr.res.in, Kang JooSang , Michael Danilov , Ritchie Patterson , Rolf-Dieter Heuer , tiziano.camporesi@cern.ch, "Barry C. Barish" Subject: DRAFT notes on R&D+concepts phone-meeting 6/7 June DRAFT Notes on phoneconference between WWS R&D group, concept contactpersons, WWS co-chairs and Snowmass detectors organiser (MO). 6/6/05, 22.00 GMT PLEASE SEND SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DJM. Present. T.Behnke, Y.Sugimoto, R.Settles, D.Karlen, M.Oreglia, R.Frey, J.Brau, M.Thomson, D.Peterson, J.Jaros, C.Damerell, .W.Lohmann, G.Wilson, H.B.Park, H.Weerts, H.Yamamoto, M.Battaglia, D.J.Miller (notes) Apologies. J-C Brient, H.Videau (These notes distributed to all invited participants + WWS-OC and BB.) 1. The agenda was the invitation letter (appended below) 2. R&D panel's survey of existing projects. DP and CD reported that response from the R&D projects was poor, so far, and they were worried that the picture would be a long way from complete by Snowmass. Out of 34 contacts expected, only 12 proper entries had been made to the website. TB remarked that the questions to be answered on the website appeared to be oriented towards single-institution projects rather than collaborations. [Note from DJM, having looked at the website: there is apparent double counting between some subprojects and the large collaborations of which those subprojects are part. This may need to be clarified for the website to be easily understood by newcomers or funding agencies.] There was also a discussion of how far the website should quantify the resources committed to R&D projects, and any perceived shortfall. Different conventions in different countries could lead to misunderstandings. Nevertheless, it is hard to make the case for better support if relevant numbers are not available. The R&D panel needs to know numbers, but should not publish all of them. It was agreed that the R&D panel would prepare a report on the status of detector R&D programmes by the end of 2005 - on the same timescale as the report on accelerator R&D which Barry Barish (BB) is asking the GDE to produce - primarily aimed at the funding agencies. The two reports would be circulated together. This is will show the need for spending on strategic detector R&D if the ILC is to achieve its full potential. The report will draw attention to gaps in the present R&D programmes. It will be an important backup to groups applying for detector R&D funds to their national or regional project review bodies. The website now being compiled by the R&D panel is the first step toward this report. 3. Deliverables from concepts. a) The concept representatives agreed that each concept will produce, at least 2 weeks before Snowmass, a brief paper listing the sub-detector technologies being being considered for the concept, and drawing attention to the gaps in the effort available for R&D on these techniques. This will be the concepts' initial input to the R&D report which BB has suggested by the end of 2005 (see above), and will provide a basis for discussions at Snowmass. SiD representatives nominated Andy White as the person to prepare their brief paper. LDC and GLD representatives said theirs would be prepared collectively. b) Detector Outlines. (already discussed at LCWS, see R&D panel charge - attached). It was agreed that these outlines, to be delivered by Spring 2005 (before LCWS in Bangalore), will serve two purposes. They will provide further input to the R&D panel, as originally suggested, but will also be the natural starting point for preparing the "detector volume" which BB has suggested that the GDE should request from the WWS, to stand alongside the CDR for the machine. The current goal is to produce that CDR by the end of 2006. WWS-OC may wish to appoint the editorial board for the detector volume early in 2006 to start work as soon as the detector outlines are available. BB would like there to be one detector volume, drawing on inputs from all three concepts and treating them as possible alternatives, in the same way as he wishes to consider three alternative sample sites in the machine CDR. HY and HW were happy that GLD and SiD could produce these reports on this timescale. TB said that LDC would try to do so too. c) Costing exercise. JB is keen that the concepts should start thinking about how they develop a common approach to costing. Some of the concepts felt they would not be ready to discuss costs by Snowmass. It was suggested that, in order to get people thinking, Marty Breidenbach be invited to prepare a presentation about how SiD is approaching detector costs - to be placed on the web and talked through by him at a phone or video conference with members of all three concepts. This would surely provoke reaction from participants in the other two concepts. It was suggested that the talk-through should be delayed until at least one of the GDE's Costing Engineers is available to join in. It was agreed to ask Marty to prepare a presentation and talk us through it. There were varied reactions to the idea of having a costing group at Snowmass, with designated representatives from the concepts. GW felt it was premature. TB said their were many uncertainties and we just don't know the costs of many detector systems. RS said any cost analyses should address performance trade-offs. JB said that BB is keen that we should start analysing detector costs. HW said we need methods that all concepts can agree upon. JB asked if the concepts would nominate a costing contactperson. SiD representatives said Marty would be the appropriate contact. LDC will discuss it. GLD will nominate someone. 4. Questions to concepts from the MDI panel. DJM reported that a draft list of questions exists. He agreed to contact the panel members (Mike Woods, Grahame Blair, Toshiaki Tauchi) and ask them to get the list to the concepts as soon as possible. 5. Concept-based sessions at Snowmass. MO said that a significant fraction of the time would be set aside for concept meetings. HY and others said that GLD and LDC may not have large numbers of participants at Snowmass to use the sessions. SiD does know how it wants to use the time. MO agreed to set up an early phonemeeting with all three concepts to work out what should be planned for those sessions. 6. Benchmarks. There has been some reluctance to recognise the benchmark panel called together by MB as a fully established WWS panel. HY agreed to immediately circulate a draft charge for it to all those on the mailing list for this meeting. After any necessary revisions it should be possible for WWS-OC to approve it. The meeting agreed that the present membership of the panel is sufficiently representative that they can be asked to go ahead vigorously and prepare the benchmark sessions for Snowmass. MB said they would do that. After those sessions WWS-OC may wish to fine-tune the membership and the charge. 7. ACFA workshop, July 11-4, Daegu All three concepts agreed to nominate ½ hour speakers and send their names to HBP. 8. Snowmass programme. MO mentioned a number of new suggestions. - a town meeting to discuss the arguments for 2 interaction regions as part of ILC baseline (discussion to be primed by a report being prepared by a panel convened by JB) - a technology forum on vertex detectors. - a joint meeting (Saturday morning?) between R&D panel and concept groups. All three were encouraged. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 8 EMAIL LETTER INVITING PARTICIPANTS TO JOIN THE MEETING. To members of the WWS R&D panel and contactpersons for SiD, GLD and LDC PLANNING FOR SNOWMASS AND THE NEXT THREE YEARS. INVITATION TO JOIN A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE with the Worldwide Study co-chairs, and Snowmass detectors organiser (Mark Oreglia) Dear friends, 1. The detector R&D panel and the three concept teams have important work to do in parallel with the GDE for the ILC. The Snowmass programme is being organised with this in mind. We need to set goals before Snowmass, and we need to agree on longer term objectives - for the end of 2005, for the end of 2006 and beyond. A list of suggested actions for the meeting is given below, based on interactions with yourselves at LCWS and afterwards with the ILCSC and the GDE Director, Barry Barish (BB). Please email back the GRID of your possible tiemslots for the phonemeeting - see end of message below. 2. The phone conference will go through the list, reach agreement on what should be done by the R&D panel and by the concept teams, and raise any other pressing questions that need to be dealt with. 3. First outline of GDE planning. At ILCSC and in direct consultation with the WWS co-chairs, BB has told us that he wants the GDE to define the configuration of the ILC by the end of 2005 and to produce a report specifying the urgent R&D needs for the machine. Then by the end of 2006 he would like a "CDR" for the machine which defines the baseline in sufficiant detail - both for technology and for cost - that it can be confidently put forward to funding agencies. To make the costs realistic he proposes that the CDR should contain input from three alternative site-studies which will illustrate how the machine cost could vary between host-states. He suggests, and the WWS-OC agrees, that the detector community should produce outputs to match these timescales: - In particular we can see great advantages in producing a detector R&D report, identifying urgent needs, by the end of 2005 - to accompany the ILC R&D report. - And we would like to see a "detector volume" to accompany the machine CDR at the end of 2006. This would be a single document, treating the three concepts as sample-studies, similarly to the way the three site studies for the machine are to be used. WWS anticipates appointing an editorial board for this volume at or before the LCWS in Bangalore 9-14 March 2006. At the end of 2006 there would be another companion volume to the CDR and the detector volume: an Executive summary for funding agencies and decision makers, giving the physics case for the ILC, with an overview of the machine and detectors. The initial appointments to the GDE are likely to be the three Regional Directors who will provide direct contact with ongoing programmes, and coordinate them with GDE plans, and three cost-engineers who will have the job of thinking very realistically about all aspects of the ILC costing, including the development of the three alternative site studies. BB expects them to advise on detector costs as well as machine costs. 4. Suggested actions for the phone meeting: a) Agreement of inputs from the concepts to the R&D panel. - we suggest that the R&D panel requests that each concept produce at least 2 weeks before Snowmass a brief paper outlining the sub-detector technologies being being considered for the concept and drawing attention to the gaps in the effort available for R&D on these techniques. This will be the intitial input to the R&D report which BB has requested by the end of 2005 (see above). The R&D panel will probably want to continue with its existing plan of putting a summary of these inputs on the web by about the time of Snowmass. - At Snowmass and after. Continued dialogue and progress reports on the items raised in the initial brief papers. - Spring 2006. Detector outline papers. These would give an overall picture of each concept, both as input to the R&D group's work, and as a basis for the "detector volume" of the GDE documentation requested for the end of 2006. It is suggested that these outlines should be circulated in final form at least 2 weeks before the LCWS in Bangalore, 9-14 March 2005. b) Agreeement of plans for detector cost studies. - WWS sugests that the concept teams each nominate 1 or 2 costing experts who will begin inter-concept discussions well in advance and come to Snowmass ready to discuss how detector costings can be done. It is expected that they will meet there as a single group with one or more of the GDE's cost-engineers, planning how the costings for the detectors can be made on a common basis. - This group could be asked to recommend how costing studies on the concepts should be made for the "detector volume" at the end of 2006. (N.B. Published cost-comparisons between concepts are NOT expected at that time, but inputs from all three concepts will be used to illustrate the likely detector costs.) c) Agreement of other concept activities before Snowmass. - Be ready to provide, for Snowmass, answers to a list of questions now being prepared by the ad hoc Machine Detector Interface panel (M.Woods, P.Bambade, T.Tauchi), in consultation with working group 4 of the GDE. Identify experts to act as contacts with the MDI panel and WG4. - Provide a speaker to review the state of the concept in a plenary session. - Join in with planned concept based session (MO to specify) d) Review of plans for the R&D panel. (Chris Damerell) e) Concept team input on what needs to be done about benchmarks. f) Other inputs and requests from the concept teams. g) Other inputs and requests from Mark Oreglia on behalf of Snowmass organisers h) AOB -- ******************************************************************** * Prof. David J. Miller, UCL, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy * * +44 207 679 7152 (fax 7145) Gower St., London WC1E 6BT, UK. * * Mobile +44 7747 030 752 http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~djm/ * ********************************************************************