F. Gianotti, AFP kick-off meeting, 20/9/2012 Recommendations for the next steps Reports from the:  Technical Review A.Henriques  Physics Review R.Hawkings.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Research Seminar Course For MRes and first-year PhD students Spring term January-March Up to 10 weeks, ca.1-2 hours per week
Advertisements

Title I Schoolwide Providing the Tools for Change Presented by Education Service Center Region XI February 2008.
1 Requirements and the Software Lifecycle The traditional software process models Waterfall model Spiral model The iterative approach Chapter 3.
The decision box represents key management decisions and serve as the GATES which delineate phases. The decision can be to proceed, exit, or recycle. More.
Status of the ATLAS MM project
May 9, 2008 Reorganization of the OSG Project The existing project organization chart was put in place at the beginning of It has worked very well.
Personal reflections, Belgrade, November 30,2009 Markus Nordberg, CERN/ATLAS.
Upstream PID Review Alan Bross MICE CM 16 October 12, 2006.
Consolidation and Upgrade of the LHC Experimental Vacuum Sectors
Accelerator Complex Controls Renovation, LHC Excluded Purpose and Scope M.Vanden Eynden on behalf of the AB/CO Group.
Software Evolution Planning CIS 376 Bruce R. Maxim UM-Dearborn.
ELearning Planning Overview. Goals of eLearning Planning Guide Reduce planning time and effort Increase eLearning effectiveness through targeted improvement.
12 Dec 2005 J. Schukraft1 ALICE USA ALICE position towards US participation EU participation in emcal Requirements Formal steps & schedule.
Software Development *Life-Cycle Phases* Compiled by: Dharya Dharya Daisy Daisy
Agenda - meeting of the GERDA Collaboration Board November 9, Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of minutes of previous Collab Board meeting 3. Update.
US Organization 05 April 2013U.S. ATLAS Electronics Meeting at BNL1.
NSW SG 19 Nov Nov 2014 S. Zimmermann, NSW SG 1.
1 News and Miscellaneous UPO Mar Didier Contardo, Jeff Spalding o General news o ESP and Manpower needs o Reviews o Document to RRB o DESY week.
M. Gilchriese ATLAS Upgrade Introduction January 2008.
27-March-10 LCWS10 - Beijing Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish LCWS10 - Beijing 27-March-10 “Cost Containment” for the TDR.
John K. Woodling CA Department of Water Resources Integrated Regional Water Management Program Update Southern California Water Dialogue May
19 November 98 1 Jürgen Knobloch ATLAS Computing ATLAS Computing - issues for 1999 Jürgen Knobloch Slides also on:
CLIC Implementation Studies Ph. Lebrun & J. Osborne CERN CLIC Collaboration Meeting addressing the Work Packages CERN, 3-4 November 2011.
RD’s Report on Detector Activity General Overview Project Advisory Sakue Yamada December 14, 2012 Sakue Yamada.
Muon LPC Meeting, 14 Sep Overview of Muon PRS Activities Darin Acosta University of Florida.
24-Aug-11 ILCSC -Mumbai Global Design Effort 1 ILC: Future after 2012 preserving GDE assets post-TDR pre-construction program.
Challenges & Issues for SBNE Nigel S. Lockyer 4/4/14.
Santa Cruz Meeting August 12 th 2008 Layout options & Schedule Issues David Lissauer 8/12/2008 1David Lissuaer, Santa Cruz Meeting.
LHCb VErtex LOcator & Displaced Vertex Trigger
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
WWSWWS Report of the World Wide Study J. Brau June 4, 2008 Dubna ILCSC Meeting.
1 News and Miscellaneous UPO Apr Didier Contardo, Jeff Spalding News from Oct. RRB HL-LHC Pile-up for simulation Upcoming events: DESY week – Taipei.
1 Global Design Effort: Controls & LLRF Controls & LLRF Working Group: Tuesday Session (29 May 07) John Carwardine Kay Rehlich.
CIWQS Review Phase II: Evaluation and Final Recommendations March 14, 2008.
Local Supports to IDR Discussion ATLAS Upgrade Week November 2014.
Plan to go forward Peter Wilson SBN Program Coordinator 27 September 2014.
Fabiola Gianotti, 13/05/2003 Simulation Project Leader T. Wenaus Framework A. Dell’Acqua WP Geant4 J.Apostolakis WP FLUKA Integration A.Ferrari WP Physics.
Report of the Technical Subcommittee Mario Bergeron, Technical Subcommittee Chair/NGEC Vice Chair.
Calorimeter Simulation Infrastructure Norman Graf Arlington ‘03.
LHC-CC Validity Requirements & Tests LHC Crab Cavity Mini Workshop at CERN; 21. August Remarks on using the LHC as a test bed for R&D equipment.
Power Upgrade Project SNS September 21-22, TBM Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Schedule Approach Tom Mann October 27, 2005.
WP4: Brainstorming meeting Geneva – 19 th March 2009 Outcome of the meeting Including follow-up sessions Session participants.
Next Generation Nuclear Plant Licensing Strategy William D. Reckley NRC/NRO/ARP March 12, 2009.
ILC 2007 Global Design Effort 1 Planning Damping Rings Activities in the Engineering Design Phase Andy Wolski Cockcroft Institute/University of Liverpool.
Final Report – Injector Re- Commissioning Working Group (IRWG) Working group to find strategy for more efficient start-up of injectors and associated facilities.
A Fast Hardware Tracker for the ATLAS Trigger System A Fast Hardware Tracker for the ATLAS Trigger System Mark Neubauer 1, Laura Sartori 2 1 University.
Brief Status of LHC Experimental Vacuum Project Ray Veness CERN TE/VSC.
IBL TDR G. Darbo / INFN Genova ATLAS CB – October 2010 o TDR of Insertable B-layer ATLAS CB, October 8 th 2010 G. Darbo / INFN - Genova Indico agenda page:
University Research Model Committee - Key points/issues - Other points/issues - New ideas - “University Model” issues in the report - Findings and Recommendations.
ATLAS Forward Project (AFP) Technical review outcome Review done on (morning) September 2013, see agenda
August 24, 2011IDAP Kick-off meeting - TileCal ATLAS TileCal Upgrade LHC and ATLAS current status LHC designed for cm -2 s 7+7 TeV Limited to.
CMS Crosscut Operations and Research, Theory, Computing, University Involvement C. Young and B. Zhou.
HL-LHC Review of WP 1 Lucio Rossi – CERN 3rd general meeting for application 20 October 2010.
1. Baseline – from LMC  Presentation by F. Bordry at LHC Machine Committee 5.10 on LS1 Organisation: 1. Linac4 is not going to be connected.
NSW SG 10 Dec Nov 2014 S. Zimmermann, NSW SG 1.
LBNF 1 LBNF/DUNE – Construction Summary. LBNF Far Site Facilities Scope and Requirements LNG Membrane cryostat is an European technology. CERN has now.
Fall 2006P7305: Freshman Practicum AM Receiver P7305: Learning Module for EE Freshman Practicum Chris Urban: Lead Engineer Hans-Christian Rotmann: Project.
LARP Accelerator Systems D. Rice, J. Rosenzweig, M. White LARP 2009 review.
Summary of IAPP scientific activities into 4 years P. Giannetti INFN of Pisa.
Jim Fast Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
TC activities.
Project definition and organization milestones & work-plan
MQXF Planning Paolo Fessia, Frederic Savary, Ezio Todesco, Lucio Rossi - CERN Mike Anerella, Peter Wanderer - BNL Giorgio Ambrosio, Mark Kaducak - FNAL.
Machine-Experiment Interface
Upgrade Strategy for the Experimental Vacuum Systems
Francesco Forti University and INFN, Pisa
Preparations for a Lehman Review
Simulation Framework Subproject cern
LHC External Collimation Review
Preliminary Project Execution Plan
Presentation transcript:

F. Gianotti, AFP kick-off meeting, 20/9/2012 Recommendations for the next steps Reports from the:  Technical Review A.Henriques  Physics Review R.Hawkings will follow On behalf of ATLAS Management and Upgrade Coordinator Congratulations to the AFP community on the huge amount of work and efforts invested in this review

F. Gianotti, AFP kick-off meeting, 20/9/2012 The physics case requires consolidation, following also suggestions from the theorist referees  see R. Hawkings’ report Significant technical issues remain (e.g. HBP design, complete design of timing detector, trigger, and readout). Although these issues can be addressed, timely development and demonstration of solutions is needed. The LVL1 trigger capability has to be demonstrated (e.g. in terms of rate) for the physics cases requiring it. More work is needed, in particular with full detector simulations, to assess the impact of pile-up and of machine backgrounds (beam halo, showers from collimators, etc.) in a more realistic way The community has to grow and demonstrate it has the strength to build and operate the detector, and develop the needed software and data preparation infrastructure. Interest around AFP physics has to grow from within and outside ATLAS, so as to allow a full exploitation of the physics capabilities of the detector. The financial frame is not clear (several FA have declined to fund) Findings For these reasons, we believe it is premature to go for CB approval now; it would also be very risky as a rejection may have irreversible consequences

F. Gianotti, AFP kick-off meeting, 20/9/2012 Recommendations for the next step Addressing all the issues identified by the review will require more time. For this reason, the project should develop a realistic plan targeting a later installation than currently planned. Key elements of the plan should include the following

F. Gianotti, AFP kick-off meeting, 20/9/2012 The project should choose as a baseline a pile-up of μ~50 (and include uncertainties) Continue to work on HBP and interface to the machine in order to pass the LHC review Continue to work on detector and HBP R&D and construction with the goal of installing a detector slice on a test-beam in early 2014: this will serve as final qualification, demonstration of the project feasibility and engineering run. It will be the basis for the TDR preparation; it will also speed up the final detector commissioning in situ. In 2014 install enough infrastructure at 210 m to allow insertion of the detectors during the Christmas shut-down and engineering tests on the beam. Target the final physics review in the second half of 2013 (organization of an AFP Physics WS involving also phenomenologists in early 2013 would be a very good initiative) Target the final technical review for CB approval in the first half of 2014 Target CB approval on Summer 2014, with TDR release in the second half of 2014 In order to be able to address the above recommendations, reorganize the AFP project in a more robust way (e.g. appointing a Technical Coordinator, separating the Project Leader and Physics Coordination roles, including trigger, etc.) We are glad to discuss in the coming weeks a set of intermediate milestones from the AFP community to address the issues raised by the review