1. Eric Prebys 10/28/2008

2.  Generally, I thought this was a productive meeting  Lots of useful discussion  Would still rather have all plenary More specifically I would have liked to go to all sessions  Might need to go longer in the future? 10/28/2008 E. Prebys, LARP PS2 Session DRAFT 2

3.  Lumi  Failure is not an option, even if other programs suffer  Magnet program  Failure is also not an option, but can we reduce budget without risking ultimate success (e.g. divert to Phase II related JIRS)  Crab cavities  Would prefer LARP to focus on design, rather than fabrication  LARP could perhaps build cavity (maybe with SBIR help?)  LARP can’t build cryomodule  Must make base line design selection as soon as possible  PS2  Use this year to choose one or two key topics  Multi-lab interest important criterion.  Bottom line: FY09 will be a year of difficult choices 10/28/2008 E. Prebys, LARP PS2 Session DRAFT 3

4.  Assume flat-flat budget over next year or so  Will work on this, but don’t expect miracles  ~$12-$13M/yr  Lumi and Rotating collimators will ramp down  Would be naïve to assume they go to zero  Several things positioning to take their place  Existing efforts (Ecloud, beam beam, jirs)  New things (PS2, crab cavities)  Either PS2 or crab cavities could easily use out AS budget  And it would be well spent.  Have to make tough choices  Can’t do everything we want  Strong pressure to shrink MS budget 10/28/2008 E. Prebys, LARP PS2 Session DRAFT 4

5. 10/28/2008 E. Prebys, LARP PS2 Session DRAFT 5 Let a hundred flowers bloom Then start gardening