ILC US detector R&D review H.Weerts, Argonne Nat. Lab. Financial aspects & future planning R&D Plan

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 2 Outline Missing Subsystem: Solenoid Introduction Description of methods used “ Top down ” $ estimates Comparison to guidance profile given Lab corrections Comparisons for subsytems

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 3 Solenoid Did feasibility study: 5T solenoid can be built, based on CMS design & conductor. Technically most demanding solenoid: SiD Three concepts, similar solenoids ( design a la CMS) 4 th concept requires engineering R&D components/areas: Conductor, materials & shape (NbTi, Al stabilized )( not active in US) Solenoid design ( build small one) Flux return design Mechanical support Expertise in solenoid design mostly outside US High cost in any concept

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 4 Introduction Will give a somewhat historical overview how we arrived at $$ numbers, where we are right now and what needs to be done ( Jim already covered some of this) Produce a “ bottoms up ” estimate of needs of the US ILC detector R&D program Right after EPP2010: optimism was very high In about 2 months, such a estimate was produced and given to DoE May/June 2006 Total funding estimates FY07-FY11: ~$128M optimism was now at modest level …. Fall 2006 Produce a “ more realistic ” estimate with milestones, estimates on lab resources ( tricky) Asked mostly ALCPG subgroup leaders to do this This is called the “ top-down ” estimate and this is what will be used in all further discussion.

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 5 Creators of initial “top-down” estimate Mostly ALCPG subdetector leaders/co-leaders: LEP Eric Torrence, Oregon VXD Ron Lipton, FNAL TRK-TPC Dan Peterson, Cornell TRK-Si Bruce Schumm, UC St. Cruz CAL-EM Ray Frey, Oregon CAL-had Dhiman Chakraborty, NIU Mu/PID Paul Karchin, Wayne State Forward Bill Morse, BNL Solenoid Kurt Krempetz, FNAL TestBeam Jae Yu, UT Arlington AlgorithmNorman Graf, SLAC (if group exists) of course with help from many others

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 6 Methods used to produce the “ top-down ” estimate Based on program described in the subsystems talks at review Assume that R&D is competed by FY11 Year covered: FY07-FY11 i.e. five years Include ALL cost (regardless where resources will come from), so manpower as well as M&S No contingency and no inflation Manpower: include FTE ’ s required; uniform conversion to $$ ’ s Produce this for each subsystem in a “ standard ” format Produce milestones ( in previous talks) Roll up the numbers to get totals This is changing in US, not worldwide yet.

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 7 Additional work done on “top-down” estimate Reviewed by ALCPG Exec committee J.Alexander, J.Brau M.Demarteau, D.MacFarlane M.Oreglia, R. Van Kooten H.Weerts No major changes Include a management reserve (form of contingency) As FY07 progressed Some supplemental funding was made available in Fy07 P. Grannis gave guidance funding profile for FY08 through FY13 Simply shift the existing FY07-FY11 estimate to an FY08-FY12 estimate, without any changes or revisions. Overview

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 8 Examples

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 9 Switch to spreadsheet with some examples The spreadsheet containing all this information can be found at:

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 10 Overview Everything included as far as we know

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 11 M&S requests only M&S is $16M out total of $94M ( no reserve added) Manpower dominates the cost

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 12 Some comments Estimates were arrived at after a long period of minimal funding Efforts at labs, either did not exist or were funded from non- ILC sources ( start thinking very small ) Claim: estimates are rough and need to be improved, with clear guidelines ( what should be included and what not). In principle current estimate of request includes everything related to R&D ( nothing else i.e. not EDR) Received guidance about funding from DoE.

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 13 Funding profile given by DOE No numbers from NSF yet Guidance from P.Grannis, ~May 2007; funding envelope

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 14 Some notes Funding profile is for 6 years ( not 5) Extends into FY13 Not consistent with GDE plans Laboratories ( at least FNAL & SLAC): Physicist manpower ( staff & postdocs) & Travel is not part of this funding For us this means we need estimate of manpower that labs will contribute to this from “ other ” /non-ILC sources Request this information from labs i.e. what do labs estimate is contribution to ILC manpower in terms of physicists ( staff& postdocs) by subsystem and NOT funded by ILC funds. Somewhat sensitive Received estimates FY08-FY13: FNAL, SLAC, BNL, ANL, Cornell This information is one week old, and there has been no iteration & checks on this, so treat this as very preliminary

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 15 Manpower detail FNAL special:  Top down estimate Estimate after subtracting lab contributions Lab contributions

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 16 Manpower detail FNAL special:  08-13

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 17 Manpower detail 2 Estimated contributions from labs to manpower are non-negligible Request “ Contribution ” Funding scenarios Shortfall scenarios Show this graphically ….. Bottom line

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 18 Request & Funding ; graphically Now assume funding is: (high +low)/2 = average Note: Amazingly not totally out of whack FY08 request (not far away) is probably on high side Lab contrib. through non-ILC sources important

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 19 Status This is the current status as of a few days ago. There has been no time to react to this Needs input from many and there has been no time Al so need to verify better lab manpower contributions Also would like to take into account feedback & recommendations from this review Do one exercise: Assume average funding profile ( high+low)/2 Assume lab contributions in FY13 Reweigh “ top-down ” request profile, lowering 08,09 and stretching into FY13, keep total fixed Add manpower in FY13 ( can not do without) (Exercise 1)

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 20 Exercise 1 Manpower Assumptions

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 21 Exercise 1(2) Reweigh profile Add manpower ( 6 th year) Lab contrib. in now Shift profile: Reduce first year Shift peak earlier, then ramp down No effect on sum

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 22 Exercise 1 (3) No real revelation or insight from standard version. Graphs 

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 23 Exercise 1(4) Previous version Reweigh + FY13 manpower

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 24 Observations Everything compared to DoE guidance only; no NSF guidance yet A first estimate/scope of US ILC detector R&D has been formulated No recipe on how to proceed ( No ILC lab or entity) Lab contributions are obviously critical and vital Program defined as part of worldwide effort: complimentary & part of it Need clear structure/responsibilities for R&D areas Current top down estimate, with assumptions made, fits within higher end of existing guidance Estimate is for 5 year program, extend to 6 ? ALCPG is US coordinating mechanism for “ ILC physics & detectors ” No contingency No inflation No project

DoE/NSF ILC Detector review, Jun 19-20, 2007 H.Weerts 25 Conclusions “ Top down ” funding estimates still needs work Feedback from this committee is critical on defining the future and direction of US ILC detector R&D program The scale of the R&D has been defined Did we miss anything ? This is R&D only; does not include EDR phase for detectors Personal: To establish & execute this R&D program in a coordinated and coherent way need a structure that takes on this task