1. DETECTOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Fred Borcherding frederick.borcherding@science.doe.gov 1

2. Challenges for Next Generation’s Detectors  Need larger volume –High Energy Frontier – more B or L for tracking … –Cosmic – more target mass  Need finer segmentation –Understanding of rare processes  Need better Signal to Background –Rare processes limited by background level not signal size  Need better cost per channel  Overall Budgets have been flat/flat –No increase –No inflation correction  Not really any expectation that this will change over next N years –Funds for new activities will have to come from redirection of effort  Do all of this with the same $s 2

3. DOE Grant / Funding Basics  Detector R&D – University Grants ~$3M –Research / Base Can fund people –Detector Development (See next slide for an example) Specific development projects (mix of SWF and M&S) –ADR – Advanced Detector Research Solicited from university groups only “startup” work on long lead time/high gain(/risk) detector ideas 1 year grant – can go to 2 $750,000 total, ~$600,000 new FY11  Detector R&D – National Laboratory ~$20M –Research / Base Laboratory directed but reviewed by HEP Can support infrastructure –Detector Development projects  Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) –Congressional mandate supported by HEP funds. –Specific annual solicitations for targeted detector R&D efforts HEP R+D Budget Categories  KA15 –Advanced Technology R&D Subprogram  KA1503 –Other Technology R&D ‘Other’ as opposed to 1501 &1502 which are accelerator based  KA150301 –Advanced Detector Research –University based grants  KA150302 –Detector Development –National laboratory based grants 3

4. Collider Detector R&D Solicitation  New effort planned for FY2011+  Proposed Due Date – Spring 2011  Transition from experiment-specific R&D programs (LHC upgrade R&D, ILC detector R&D) to technology-driven R&D programs, e.g.: –Advanced pixel detectors –New approaches in calorimetry –Large area, inexpensive photo-detectors  DOE roles –Establish an expert review panel evaluate proposals We need volunteers for reviewers please Nominate those you feel would do a good job here –Manage a fair and orderly process and ensure alignment with strategic priorities  Community roles –Identify most promising technology areas –Create/define the proposed project(s) and collaborations –If selected for funding, execute the R&D, provide progress reports, etc. 4

5. Merit Review Criteria 1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project whether the proposed research is generic detector research that will benefit more than one experiment or research area for detector operation at a present, upgraded or future collider experiment the importance of the physics that motivates developing the proposed detector the magnitude of the potential beneficial impact versus the risk of failure. More risk is OK if potential return is greater 2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach 3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources the diversity and depth of the collaborative proposal. 4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget Would like to see (but not required) –Community collaborative efforts across Universities and Labs –Cross-cutting efforts that engage other communities and/or novel approaches for HEP –Leveraging from other funding sources, or existing R&D in related areas 5

6. Backup Slides  Links –HEP – Office of High Energy Physics, Office of Science, DOE http://www.science.doe.gov/hep/index.shtml –HEP Technology R&D program http://www.science.doe.gov/hep/research/advanced_rd.shtml –DOE Grants www.grants.gov –Office of Science Grants and Contracts Web Site: http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/index.asp 6

7. Logistical considerations  Administratively it is more straight forward and flexible for DOE to route funds through the National Labs than through Universities –A collaborative effort can be based at a lab and the funds routed from there to multiple universities and other labs –A collaborative effort can be based at a university and the funds routed from there to multiple universities but not to national labs Previous ILC research did use this model - But ILC research done by labs was channeled through parallel channels  Funding can be added to a lab on an ‘as needed basis’  Funding to a lab can be moved within a lab on an as needed basis –Including between labs for a sub- project –including to and from sub-projects by universities  Funding to a University can be modified during grant’s duration – But the process is much more cumbersome –Any significant change in scope will require an additional review cycle 7