7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 1 Chris Damerell Rutherford Appleton Lab  New charge, given to us by ILCSC on 27 th September (following meeting with Barry Barish et al on 18 th August in Snowmass):  Addendum 1 to the R&D panel charge:  At the request of the chair of the ILCSC, Produce a written report by the end of 2005 which identifies and prioritises the topics and areas of detector R&D which need immediate support. Inputs to this should be collected both from the detector concept teams and from all the detector R&D collaborations and groups interested, via their contact persons with the Detector R&D Panel. Individual proposals should not be identified. This report will initially be submitted to the WWS-OC, and then passed to the ILCSC.  Our Panel is currently discussing how to define ‘topics’, and how to establish priorities  Could lead to expanded funds for detector R&D in USA as early as FY2006. Given the timescale, we need to move fast … Detector R&D Panel – Prioritisation of Topics

7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 2  Currently favoured action plan (still to be agreed by all concerned):  A topic is typically a body of work within a subdetector, eg the minimisation of endplate thickness within the TPC subdetector  Priority 1: Results required in order to prepare LOI at end of 2008 (or as late as 2010 for selected low-cost detector systems, such as vertexing)  Priority 2: Not a potential showstopper, so results post-LOI will be OK. Or, R&D with goals on a longer timescale than ILC startup, eg for upgrade to 1 TeV  Priority 2 items could eventually evaporate if the LOI for the corresponding detector concept is rejected.  To first order, our Panel will simply collect assessments from our contact people. If we are doubtful about priority suggested or sums estimated, we will discuss with them.

7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 3 Subdetector Project N Project N+1 Min endplate thickness Optimise gas mix New money Secure funding Tbd, 1 or 2 TOPICS Publish needs for each topic, with priority ratings eg TPC, Si tracker, ECAL No question of fiddling around with secure funding Priorities Contact people

7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 4  Example 1: PFA for forward jets Is 30%/sqrt(E_jet) achievable? Is thickness of barrel supports (SiD) and/or of endplate (TPC) of critical importance? (ie Priority 1 or 2?) Does any detector concept have the tools to answer this? [evaluation of ‘recovery’ from converted  s and interacting hadrons] LDC people hope to have something for Vienna, but how deeply can they study this?  Example 2: DIRC-based PID From SLD experience, could significantly enhance vertex charge measurement Penalty of 2 cm quartz before ECAL may be modest Overheads from Si-PMTs? Jerry Va’Vra could lead this study

7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 5 GDE (Design) (Construction) Technology Choice Acc CDR TDRStart Global Lab. Det. Detector Outline Documents CDRsLOIs R&D Phase Collaboration Forming Construction Detector R&D Panel Tevatron SLAC B LHC HERA T2K Done! Detector “Window for Detector R&D Andy White, SiD R&D plans, Snowmass, 20 Aug 2005 In practice, cutoff for detector R&D will extend much later, but within the approved collaboration(s)

7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 6 Longer term plans – preliminary discussion with GDE  Initial discussion between R&D Panel members, WWS-OC directors and Barry Barish for GDE took place on Aug 18th  Suggestion is being considered of evolving to a second phase, where our panel would be replaced by a committee under the GDE  This committee would review individual proposals, hold open session presentations, appoint referees, set milestones, require progress reports, etc.  Current composition of Detector R&D Panel would not be appropriate – we are all ILC ‘insiders’ with potential conflicts of interest

7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 7  Wise advice from Enzo Iarocci, who chaired the DRDC for 3 years, starting 1990, in the phase that led to the formation of LHC detector collaborations (4 proposals that condensed into ATLAS and CMS) Panel should have a modest budget (DRDC had approx 6M euros p.a.) in order to provide initial backing for approved projects. Could FALC help with such a central pool of funding? Endorsement by this Panel would be a powerful stimulus for support from national funding agencies Panel should organise Open Sessions, for presentation of proposals and status reports. For 3 years, the Open DRDC meetings at CERN were the main public platform for many LHC-related matters To minimise costs and guarantee large audiences, it may be good to schedule these meetings as part of regional and international ILC meetings (ECFA/DESY workshop in Vienna next month, LCWS2006 in Bangalore in March 2006, …) DRDC did reject a number of proposals and helped to focus R&D in the critical period before the formation of the LHCC or of the detector collaborations

7 October 2005SiD tracking – Chris Damerell 8 Conclusions  Several important developments reported at Snowmass illustrated the provisional nature of many of our studies, despite much hard work since LCWS 1991 (desired granularity for ECAL, potential for physics of vertex charge from an optimised vertex detector)  Current studies are generally well focused – though there are surely some areas which could become more cost effective by pooling resources.  The urgent task of the Detector R&D Panel is to establish the current levels of support in different countries, and quantify the needed expansion  Creation of a global peer review panel with a modest budget to support projects would stimulate the expanded programme that everyone in the detector community knows to be urgently needed (my personal opinion)  >90% of support will continue to be supplied by national funding sources