1. NESTOR-KM3NET Presented by Ion Siotis National Centre for Scientific Research DEMOKRITOS ECFA meeting, Athens, October 2008

2. Last ECFA meeting in Athens – March 2001 NESTOR presentation by L.K.Resvanis OUTLINE NESTOR 2001  2005 transition NESTOR-KM3NeT 2005  today KM3NeT Design Study – KM3NeT Preparatory Phase future (NUBE) KM3NeT 2011  2014

3. 2005 N E S T O R Neutrino Extended Submarine Telescope with Oceanographic Research a variable geometry collaboration – see publications

4. Also a very versatile and convenient area

5. 5 The Cable Deployment: June 2000 ElectroOptical cable to shore (18 fibers +1 conductor) Deployed in June 2000 by the cableship MAERSK- FIGHTER (ALCATEL- TELEDANMARK) Cable was damaged during laying because of ship’s problems. Cable landing has been completed and first three km have been buried 2 m inside the bottom sand. NESTOR Star Deployment (March 2003)

6. 6 32 m diameter 30 m between floors NESTOR TOWER 144 PMTs Energy threshold as low as 4 GeV 20 000 m 2 Effective Area for E>10TeV

8. 8 Hamamatsu PMT R2018-03 (15”) Benthos spheres μ-metal cage power supply The 2003-Detector

9. 9

10. Coincidence rate for OMs as measured at a depth of 3800m with 1pe thresholds The points represent the data, the solid line the Monte Carlo estimation including background and the dashed line the Monte Carlo estimation for the contribution of the atmospheric muons. 4 fold rate is 0.25 Hz for this 12 PMT node.

11. 11 single p.e. LED Run single p.e. pulse height distribution two p.e. s pulse height distribution dark current pulse height distribution sum of the above Data from a depth of 3800 m PMT Pulse Height Distribution Calibration K 40 Background: A stable calibration source

12. 12 Event 1785 – Run 81 – BFile 3 c

13. 13 Event 1785 – Run 81 – BFile 3 c

14. The measured vertical muon intensity I 0 and the index , at a depth of 3800 m water equivalent, are

17. In parallel with NESTOR activities 2001  2005 KM3NeT Design Study preparation and Proposal submission Preparation Amsterdam, 4.-8. October 2003 – VLVNT workshop – 3. KM3NeT co-ordination meeting Munich, 24.-26. November 2003 – ApPEC Design Study Workshop – 4. KM3NeT co-ordination meeting Athens, 15.-17. January 2004 – KM3NeT writing group meeting Rome, February 2004 – KM3NeT meeting(s) before Design Study deadline Submission Brussels, 4. March 2004, 17:00 MET DS deadline! Approval-Start Approved, September 2005 Start-Kickoff February 2006  end November 2009

18. Objectives and Scope of the Design Study Establish path from current projects to KM3NeT:  Critical review of current technical solutions;  New developments, thorough tests;  Comparative study of sites and recommendation on site choice (figure of merit: physics sensitivity / €);  Assessment of quality control and assurance;  Exploration of possible cooperation with industry;  Investigation of funding and governance models. Total budget for KM3NeT DS 20 Meuro EC contribution 10 Meuro Half way deliverable CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT (CDR)

19. Conceptual Design for a Very Large Volume Neutrino and Sea Science Observator in the Mediterranean Sea KM3NeT Consortium 39 institutions (5 EL) from 10 EU countries ~250 participants (~25 EL) University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom / University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands / APC, Paris, France / University of Athens, Greece / University of Bari and INFN Sezione Bari, Italy / University of Bologna and INFN Sezione Bologna, Italy / University of Catania and INFN Sezione di Catania, Italy / CEA Saclay, France / CNR – ISMAR, Ancona, Italy / CPPM, Marseille, France / CSIC, Spain / University of Cyprus / DIAS, Dublin, Ireland / University of Erlangen, Germany / University of Genova and INFN Sezione Genova, Italy / Universit é de Haut Alsace GRPHE, Mulhouse, France / HCMR, Greece / HOU, Greece / IFREMER, France / INGV, Catania, Italy / IPHC DRS,Strasbourg, France / ISS, Bucharest, Romania / University of Kiel, Germany / KVI and University of Groningen, the Netherlands / University of Leeds, United Kingdom / University of Liverpool, United Kingdom / INFN LNF, Frascati, Italy / INFN LNS, Catania, Italy / University of Napoli and INFN Sezione Napoli, Italy / NCSR Demokritos, Athens, Greece / NIKHEF, Amsterdam, the Netherlands / NOA NESTOR inst, Pylos, Greece / University of Pisa and INFN Sezione Pisa, Italy / University of Roma 1 and INFN Sezione Roma, Italy / University of Sheffield, United Kingdom / Tecnomare, Venice, Italy / University of Utrecht, the Netherlands / University of Valencia, Spain / Universidad Polit é cnica Valencia, Spain KM3NeT Design Study funded by FP6 ~10 Meuro (~2.5 Meuro to EL groups)

20. KM3NeT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT Delivered to EC and published April 2008 http://www.km3net.org/CDR/CDR-KM3NeT.pdf KM3NeT CDR DESIGN GOALS Topics addressed Lifetime Environmental Impact Energy Range Zenith Angular Acceptance Angular Resolution of Detector Time and Position Resolution Charge Dynamic Range Two-hit Time Separation Coincidences To optimise the physics potential of the neutrino telescope, design goals for these topics have been quantified for the technical implementations. Work is now continuing towards Technical Design Report (TDR)

21. FP7 Preparatory Phase for projects on the ESFRI roadmap ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/esfri/docs/pse-report-roadmap-wg-2006_en.pdf KM3NeT PP proposal endorsed with total budget ~10 Meuro, EC support 5 M € 3 year project March 2008 - March 2011 Objectives: Definition of legal structure & governance Political convergence: site issue & funding Strategic issues: new partners, extendability of detector,.. Operational phase: organisation & user communities Pre procurement with industrial partners System prototyping

22. SUMMARY so far Science case of KM3NeT shown: Neutrino (astro)physics Marine and Earth sciences DS Conceptual Design Report KM3NeT published DS Technical Design Report foreseen in October 2009 PP Working towards start of construction in 2011 KM3NeT will be a new generation facility: Point source sensitivity ~50 times that of ANTARES Point source sensitivity ~3 times that of IceCube Will complement IceCube in field of view New opportunities for marine and earth sciences New groups are more than welcome

23. Key Issue: Siting For many future Research Infrastructures of Pan European interest siting is a key issue. Example : European Spallation Source ESS. 3 candidates Bilbao (Spain)-Debrecen (Hungary)-Lund (Sweden) Same applies to KM3NeT though site criteria are different. Anticipated in DS proposal. "...The selection of the optimal site for the infrastructure presents a unique challenge to our scientific community due to the intricate interplay between scientific, technological, financial and socio-political / regional considerations. It is our intention to deliver a clear prioritisation of site qualities based on scientific, technological and financial aspects only. However, depending on the strength of this prioritisation, the final site selection may well be determined by socio-political / regional considerations. Whether weak or strong, this Design Study prioritisation will provide a sound, rational basis for decision-makers..."

24. Timescale for site decision. At time of writing KM3NeT DS proposal this was end 2009-early 2010. Original 2005-2006 EC proposal for FP7 called for ~ 2.2 Beuro to be invested in early construction phase (engineering phase) of new RI ’ s (20-25% of cost). In final FP7 budget no funds for EC participation in RI construction Commission Final Council FP7 Proposal FP7 Decision (keuro) (keuro) Research Infrastructures 3961 1715 Research for the benefit of SMEs 1901 1336 Regions of Knowledge 158 126 Research Potential 554 340 Science in Society 554 330 Activities of International Cooperation 358 180 Coherent development of research policies --- 70 Total “ Capacities ” 7 486 4097

25. Final FP7 Council decision “… Support for new research infrastructures: ---Construction of new infrastructures and major upgrades of existing ones focussing mainly on preparatory phases, to promote the emergence of new research facilities, in accordance with the principle of ‘ variable geometry ’, building primarily upon the work conducted by ESFRI …...... As far as the construction of new infrastructures is concerned, the potential for scientific excellence of the convergence regions as well as the outermost regions should be taken into account, whenever appropriate. An efficient coordination of the Community financial instruments, in particular the Seventh Framework Programme and the structural funds, will be ensured. ” Such an efficient coordination HAS NOT been ensured Problem: Structural Funds (ERDF) 2007  2013 Budget must be finalized by end 2008 KM3NeT DS timetable for prioritization of site qualities out of sync with ERDF timetable

26. Greece Letter of the Greek Secretary General for RTD (Ministry of Development) to Commissioner Potocnik, in copy to the Greek Minister of Development Mr.C Folias, dated 22-10-07 informing him of the Greek “…Government's decision to host the Cubic Kilometer Neutrino Telescope (KM3NeT), a European Research Infrastructure on the ESFRI Roadmap, and fund it from 2009 on with 20% of the total cost with a ceiling of 50 Million euro if it were located in Pylos.” This decision has been repeatedly reiterated since then and will be communicated to the EC Research Ministers at their meeting in Brussels on December 2, 2008.

27. HENAP report following OECD Mega(now Global)Science Forum Workshop held in Taormina in 1997 “ High Energy Neutrino Observatories ” ; Report of the High Energy Neutrino Astrophysics panel to PaNAGIC Committee: HENAP REPORT 1-July 2002 HENAP Physical and Geographical criteria for optimal site The deeper the better The site should be close to the coast The site should be a safe distance from shelf breaks and underwater canyons The site should exhibit good optical underwater properties The sedimentation rate at the site should be as low as possible Underwater currents should be small and have stable direction Site Criteria

28. Also a very versatile and convenient area

29. in addition to HENAP KM3NeT list of parameters relevant to choice of site Deployment harbour Logistics Shore premises Data connections Local and regional support Operational support Cost and timescales of all this The dossiers should also describe the deep-sea site characteristics (at least depth, location, proximity to shore, maximum size of extended deep-sea infrastructure) ---> See HENAP criteria At the EU Research Ministers’ meeting on December 2 nd, the Greek case for Pylos will address both the HENAP criteria and the KM3NeT parameters.