ALICE-USA in the BTU project 1

2 US Scope: Inner Read-out Chambers and Associated Readout Electronics

3 Proposed US ITS Scope

Early ALICE-USA Upgrade work focused on 4 separate projects - All 4 were presented to the DOE in short “white Papers” ALICE Action: VHMPID (UH) -> Ultimately rejected by the ALICE Collaboration FoCal (ORNL, UT, WSU) -> On hold. R&D will finish. Conceivable only after LS-2 ITS (LBNL) -> Part of the baseline program approved by ALICE and LHCC TPC (Yale) -> Part of the baseline program approved by ALICE and LHCC 4

Early ALICE-USA Upgrade work focused on 4 separate projects - All 4 were presented to the DOE in short “white Papers” ALICE Action: VHMPID (UH) -> Ultimately rejected by the ALICE Collaboration FoCal (ORNL, UT, WSU) -> On hold. R&D will finish. Conceivable only after LS-2 ITS (LBNL) -> Part of the baseline program approved by ALICE and LHCC TPC (Yale) -> Part of the baseline program approved by ALICE and LHCC 5

DOE Conference Call April 19 th Tom CormierJehanne Gillo – Head Project Division John HarrisTim Hallman – Head Office of Nuclear Physics Peter Jacobs Jim Sowinski – Program Manager for Heavy Ion Physics Soren Sorensen We discussed ALICE decision on FoCal and VHMPID and presented BTU project as a single Major Equipment Project DOE asked us to prepare for a review “Late Summer” A successful review could lead to the inclusion of BTU in the 2015 budget They were careful to let us know that we should be encouraged the the review request 6

DOE Conference Call April 19 th Review Scope: Scientific Justification - like CD-0 This is normally the main content of a first review Preliminary Management Plan - Like CD-1 Deliverables - Like CD-1 Cost Range- Like CD-1 To provide us the opportunity to prove we are ready to move ahead quickly and get into the FY15 budget they have asked to see these additional details of our readiness 7

So where are we today (after < 1 month)? -- Coming to grips with ITS and TPC a one project Very different technologies but a single physics motivation Create a management team with both TPC and ITS proponents: Tom Cormier – CPM Peter Jacobs, LBNL – Deputy CPM (ITS) Dick Majka, Yale – Deputy CPM (TPC) Joseph Rasson, LBNL Retired – Deputy CPM (Project Engineer) + future sub-system managers + ….. 8

Priorities over the next several weeks Prepare the physics case and physics performance * This would be impossible in the time available but we can draw heavily on existing and on going work on the TDRs Understand ALICE-USA Manpower and Contributed Resource * iterative process * collaboration is responding well Justify Alternative Selection * adopt from ITS/TPC CDR and TDR Define US scope in both TPC and ITS * in progress (working with ALICE TPC and ITS projects) Define the associated Cost Range including contributed resources Create R&D plan with risk assessment Create Preliminary Project Execution Plan 9

How will ALICE-USA Institutes contribute to the two sub-projects? The ITS is a cutting-edge endeavor with specialized composite material fabrication techniques  Most University groups will not contribute to composite fabrication or assembly. Peter will site some possible exceptions – software, conventional machining, engineering, etc. The TPC requires more standard (although still subtle) fabrication techniques.  Many university groups will be able to contribute to TPC fabrication and in some cases assembly. John will say more about this. 10

Time Line So after one month we are making good progress on all fronts. Much more help needed now and through the balance of the summer The review “end of summer”  All of the above (including the physics case) must be ready by ~August 15 th to allow time for final write up and vetting. Exactly 3 months ….. 11