1 / 9

Neutrino Factory Design Study

Neutrino Factory Design Study. Introduction - Rob Edgecock (30’) Proton Driver - Roland Garoby (20’) Target - Roger Bennett (20’) Collection - Jean-Eric Campagne (20’) MICE - Alain Blondel (20’) FFAGs - Francois Meot (20’)

crevan
Download Presentation

Neutrino Factory Design Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Neutrino Factory Design Study • Introduction - Rob Edgecock (30’) • Proton Driver - Roland Garoby (20’) • Target - Roger Bennett (20’) • Collection - Jean-Eric Campagne (20’) • MICE - Alain Blondel (20’) • FFAGs - Francois Meot (20’) • Physics and Detectors - Mauro Mezzetto (20’) • Accelerator - Helmut Haseroth (30’) • Discussion

  2. Steering Group Director: Ken Peach Coordinator: Rob Edgecock Japanese representative: Yoshi MoriUS representative: Mike Zisman Proton Driver: Roland Garoby Chris PriorTargetry: Roger BennettJacques DumarchezMICE: Alain BlondelJohn Cobb FFAGs: Francois MeotKlaus Bongardt?Design & Engineering: Helmut Haseroth Rob Edgecock Paolo Strolin Vittorio Palladino Physics: Pilar Hernandez Mauro Mezzetto

  3. Plans…….. • Aim of the meeting: presentation of preliminary ideas for work to be included • Get feedback • This must follow the call “rules” completely! • Independent assessment of proposal will be arranged • Plans finalised by 21st January • All transparencies to me before CERN closes please! • ”Rules”……..

  4. Rules…….. • EC will give 1-10M€ • Maximum of 50% of total cost • Capital investments are excluded • In addition, EC wants to spend money on R&D: - concrete, etc, completely excluded - “off the shelf” hardware minimised (<50%) • “Third party” (US & Japan) resources excluded • If work depends on third parties, they have to sign contract • Infrastructure is new, but FS and R&D must also be new • Evolution from existing equipment is allowed • 2-4 years duration, but longer possible if justified

  5. Assessment…….. Assessment in 4 categories………. • European added value of the new infrastructure - the extent of the European significance and interest of the proposed infrastructure, in particular in terms of the needs of potential users • Scientific and technological excellence the extent to which - the proposed new infrastructure is scientifically and technologically original and innovative; - the proposed study or work is scientifically and technologically well structured, also in relation to the overall development plans of the new infrastructure

  6. Assessment…….. • Relevance to the objectives of the scheme the extent to which - there is a clear scientific and technological need for the proposed feasibility study or technical preparatory work; - the proposed study or work is capable of exploring the funding and, where appropriate, the regional dimensions of the proposed infrastructure • Quality of the management the extent to which - the project management and the competence of each partner are appropriate for the intended study or work; - there is a clear description and justification of the corresponding budget, divided by tasks and by participants

  7. Assessment…….. • Each marked out 5 • Each must get > 3 • Average > 3.5 • For IA, only > 4.5 was funded • Design Studies expected to be more difficult • We have to be very careful!

  8. Proposal preparation Review of plans: 18th December Final review of proposal 18th February Timescales Form Steering Group: Done Form Work Package teams: Started Work Package teams formed: 12th December 2003 1st plans/WP: 18th December 2003 Firmed up plans, outline of: 16th January 2003 proposal, 1st cost and schedule Start writing final version: 22nd January 2004 Final editing starts: 14th February 2004 Finish proposal: 23rd February 2004 Submit proposal: 4th March 2004, 5pm!

  9. Final complication ECFA: 3 DS & 3 calls  1 DS/call LC has highest priority  1st call NF next priority  2nd call Many reasons why we should submit in 1st call: - LHC upgrade, Frejus,…….., in later calls - approved DS delayed to later calls - beta beams in this call - LC may not be ready - funding required now: WDS already falling behind need CDR by 2010 - if assessment not effected, nothing to lose Our decision, but we can’t ignore ECFA/ESGARD Assuming for now we submit in 1st call ESGARD meeting is probably too late

More Related