GDE Executive Committee: Public Meeting Minutes 19 October 2006

Present:

Barish, Foster, Walker, Yokoya, Hronek (sec)

Absent: Dugan, Raubenheimer, Nozaki

Guests: C. Damerell, B. Willis

Topic: WW Monitoring of ILC Detectors

  • Want peer review of detector R&D . Puts us in line with accelerator R&D
  • Some in detector community feel already enough reviews, but they are not worldwide
  • WWS charged with report of world wide detector activity
  • $30M went in detector world wide, we need $50M
  • A joint meeting of the RDB and Det R&D panel was suggested
  • Start of WW peer reviews
    • This was formalized in a draft charge given to Detector R&D board
    • First meeting is scheduled for Beijing
    • Agreement reached with Francois Richard
  • Reviewing groups
    • How do you define groups?
    • Funded by a single source?
    • Draft document sent to Detector community, WWS and EC.
  • Need advice
    • To encourage people to think about R&D, tell what they see as milestones
    • First question that comes up is timescale
    • 6yrs? R&D needs to finish by 2012. 2012 is the current assumption
    • Guidance needed on this subject

DISCUSSION:

When do collaborations get formed, etc, and maybe other milestone happen earlier. The question for us is whether it helps for the GDE to be involved? Yes can help, but not everyone will be happy. To move toward real reviews, money will be needed. Need to request the money from FALC. In the long run integrating the R&D work will be the healthiest way to go, but don’t go to far too fast. They would like the support of FALC.

The point of forming collaborations would be the end point for this panel. Some are of detectors are general & concept independent. Better left non-specific. RDB has been very helpful; being a member of the RDB is very helpful. R&D panel is influenced by the RDB. Funding for outside consultants – FALC money would be helpful. For Beijing, we will ask a few lab directors to help with money. Will be at the FALC meeting at KEK.

This is an excellent idea and should be supported.

CLOSED SESSION:

Minutes approve and post in 24 hours.

Announcements: none

RDR Mgmt Report:

Nicks’ notes: RDR Management Board Meeting 18/10/2006

Agenda:

  1. Status of central DR CR
  2. Review of Caltech ‘recommendations’ list to AS
  3. Valencia goals and parallel sessions
  4. Further paths to cost reduction
  5. Cavity/cryomodule cost issue
  6. AOB

Status of central DR CR

  • CCB hearing is scheduled for Monday 23/10
  • Paterson reported Toge has requested a few extra drawings which he will supply
  • Primary remaining issue is e+ ring fall-back (to two rings) and the required tunnel diameter. Approach will be to show cost increments for 5m tunnel and suggest this be dealt with at the EDR project phase.
  • Paterson / Toge see no real issue or show-stopper.

Review of Caltech recommendations

  • Briefly went though Gerry’s list of those AS recommendations that RDR MB felt should be pursued.
  • RDR MB points of contact to give guidance/feedback to respective AS via email. (Mostly done.)
  • Instructions to AS are to make new (where necessary) cost estimates based on the proposed design modifications, with a view to being reviewed at Valencia and submitting a CR directly thereafter (again if necessary).

Valencia goals and recommendations

  • General agreement with Tor’s suggested goals; namely:
    • To make sure (review) the system area designs for completeness/integrity
    • Prepare the TS groups to defend their costs (review the cost basis etc.)
  • [Another goal is to consolidate the current cost modifications; we should make sure we hear from the groups the scope/costs savings they have identified.]
  • Some concerns were discussed about how to fit this into the Valencia plan, and if we have the right spectrum of people attending. These need to be checked.
  • Began identifying ‘slots’ for ‘review presentations’ across the board, which did not cause conflicts. Walker to finish and send around (done).
  • Walker will produce a draft statement of charge/goals for both Valencia and the following SLAC meeting. (Previous email sent by Garbincius to be reviewed.)

Further scope for cost saving

  • Brief (but ‘emotional’) discussion of where we ‘think’ we are in achieving the 30% goal.
  • No real conclusions.
  • Walker reported he had requested that the RDR MB have access to (at least) a top level roll-up of the current costs, so that they can iterate on design trade-offs.

Cryomodule cost/cavity cost issues

  • All agreed that the current divergence of the three SCRF cost estimates remains a serious issue.
  • Suggestions of another focused meeting at DESY will be proposed, but there is little time left before Valencia.
  • Suggested that a video conference be used.
  • Tor, Peter, Gerry and Peter (all currently at FNAL) to discuss with US SCRF group (inc. Adolphsen).

DESY LCWS 2007

Will the meeting be 4.5 or 5 days?

Dates – May 30-June 4 th

ILC School –

Do we endorse the idea of the school – yes.

MAC Report

Response to MAC report on the timescale of Valencia

Valencia –

Agenda is being worked on and posted.

Next meeting:

Hasan and the S2

You are here

Home