M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 1Aug 7 th, phone Schedule and resources  SPIDER has been streamlined to cover:  1) 1 submission ‘small pixel’ ISIS (vertexing/tracking - LCFI) test chip  2) 1 optimised CMOS pixel detector optimised for vertexing/tracking  3) 1 submission large TPAC (CALICE) test chip Note – This will be investigated for use by FAIR (Nuclear Structure)  4) Calorimeter stack  Costs have been reviewed and reduced by (sequentially)  1)Minimising submissions  2)Reducing the infrastructure requirements  3) Detailed bottom-up evaluation of requirements  4)…and ???  Schedule optimisation consists of adjusting timing to take account of:  1) An early start needed by TPAC to be able to complete the full stack test  2) Smooth out the design and test-load

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 2Aug 7 th, phone Proposed schedule

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 3Aug 7 th, phone Resource usage  Things to note:  Top chart shows design effort  Work starts early (thanks to Renato)  Project needs 1-3 designers over most of the project  Bottom chart shows test tasks  (continuation of LCFI & CALICE)

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 4Aug 7 th, phone Corrections v01  V2  Add in corrections 1.Update Bristol effort (+1.45fte) & contribution to ISIS 2.Update & reprofile RAL effort (+0.6fte) 3.Reschedule ISIS effort earlier 4.Update TPAC to include PC boards, assembly +£20K 5.Review DCAL program  Move Some effort earlier  Move £50K from TPAC  Add £40K for Tungsten, cooling, cables 6.Move resources from Year-2 to Year-1 or Year-3 where possible  ISIS submission & PC boards (£105K) to Year-1  TPAC Effort & PC boards to Year-1  Some WP3 consumables to Year-1  Contingency - £60K into Year-3

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 5Aug 7 th, phone What next?  The following tables show the resources broken down by year, WP, group and device  For each device the material costs and effort are shown separately  In final column share the overheads (management, working allowance, contingency) evenly between devices  The current cost estimate is £3.45M  £1.33M (38%) Yr-1, £1.25M (36%) Yr-2, £0.87M (25%) Yr-3  We need to reduce the cost by £450K especially in the first 2 years  The breakdown between people and material costs  People ~£2.4M and Material ~£1.0M  We need to reduce people by 20% or material by 50%  The distribution of effort between groups is:  Birmingham has 5 names on proposal (4.8fte) – DCAL+TPAC  Bristol has 6 names on proposal (5.5fte) – ISIS + CHERWELL  IC has 3 names on proposal (4.4fte) – DCAL + TPAC + CHERWELL  Oxford has 5 names on proposal (4.8fte) – ISIS + CHERWELL  RAL has 7 names on proposal (9.9fte) – ISIS + TPAC + CHERWELL + DPAC  Further cuts in any group would be painful – could maybe gain ~ £100K?

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 6Aug 7 th, phone What next?  Question – What if we drop one of the research strands?  Assume we keep all of the people  ISIS save £270Ki.e. still missing £180K  TPAC save £245Ki.e. still missing £205K  CHER save £157Ki.e. still missing £293K  DCAL save £378Ki.e. still missing £ 72 K

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 7Aug 7 th, phone Resource breakdown – Table-i

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 8Aug 7 th, phone Resource breakdown – Table-ii

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 9Aug 7 th, phone How to reduce cost of Spider by ~£0.5M 1. No RAS?Reduces cost by £482K but  Can institutes deliver on work-packages? Which institutes would remain? 2. Descope/delay TPAC+DCALReduces cost by ~£450K (see next slide)  Requires a reduction of 1 RA or technical support  Could Spider program be reduced to 2 years and followed by a 2 year DCAL program? 3. Delay CherwellReduces cost by ~£430K (see next slide)  Requires reduction of an engineer and 2RAs or technical support Which institutes would remain?

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 10Aug 7 th, phone Resource breakdown – Table-ii

M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 11Aug 7 th, phone Scenario – To reduce cost of Spider by ~£0.5M After a detailed look at our cost model, I can see only one option to fit within the £1M pa cash limit. This is to redefine the TPAC and DCAL program so that it extends over a longer period. In the current 3 year period we would concentrate on proving that a sensor for digital calorimetry can be produced with the required performance. We should anticipate a 2nd 2 year research program to produce and evaluate a full stack. This could and probably should be done in the framework of a larger collaboration. Modified scheme: 1.Evaluate TPAC 1.1 and measure its response to both min-I particles and low energy photons. Compare measurements to simulation to get expected energy resolution. 2.Radiation test TPAC Evaluate high resistivity version of TPAC1.1 4.Design TPAC2.0 to be the foundation of a scalable system. Issues to be addressed:  Develop a stitchable design to eliminate the need for complex PC boards (currently the cost of the PC boards and assembly exceeds the cost of sensors)  Develop a defect tolerant design to ensure high yields (this might require a test structure)  Revisit architecture to minimise the dead area  Minimise the number of IO pads to allow ‘simple’ assembly’ 5.Production of a large area demonstrator 6.Evaluation of large area demonstrator in a min-I and EM shower beam