1. 14 April 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 1 ILC Detector R&D US Funding Needs Chris Damerell  Established funds in FY05 and required funds from FY06 for 3-5 years (from our Panel report, updated)  Summary of points from meeting on 12 April of a sub-group of WWS Detector R&D Panel (Ray Frey, Dan Peterson, Harry Weerts and Ch D), plus some welcome advice from Jim Brau  Our suggestions – for discussion by RDB

2. 14 April 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 2 Established and required funds  From Panel Report: ‘established’ is what project leaders have now ‘required’ is what they estimate they need for just-in-time proof-of- principle of their Priority 1 projects [Priority 1  major advantages for physics reach, or large cost savings]  Breakdown as manpower + equipment, manpower converted as 1 m-y = $100k for USA USA, established in FY05 4.5 + 0.6 = $5.1M USA, required from FY06 13.6 + 2.8 = $16.4M p.a.  Breakdown as labs + universities Paul Grannis ‘labs’ estimate for FY06 is $5.5M. We don’t have the figure for FY05, but it was surely somewhat lower Universities figure for FY05 was $0.8M, hoping for $1.5M in FY06 So we get for FY05: < 5.5 + 0.8 = < $6.3M, consistent with the above ‘established’ figure. Remember that the R&D Panel remit excludes development of simulation tools and other computing work Hoped-for in FY06: 5.5 + 1.5 = $7.0M  Thus, ‘required support’ for FY07 and beyond = 2.3 times this FY06 figure

3. 14 April 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 3  The R&D divides roughly equally between vertexing, tracking and calorimetry Vertexing: detector requirements (driven by physics) far exceed what has been established. R&D groups aim to demonstrate at least one working design by 2010 Tracking: PFA relies on unprecedented performance in tracking efficiency in jets. The gap to bridge is particularly challenging in the forward region, which was identified by the Panel as a completely missing R&D topic Calorimetry: Simulations are well advanced, but demonstrations with real detectors in test beams are in their infancy. Unprecedented granularity (hundreds of millions of elements) is essential for PFA, and extremely challenging  For the vertex detector, quite minor performance shortfalls can easily lead to ‘luminosity factors’ of 2 or more (see Snowmass reports). This is surely true (though not usually expressed in those terms) for the other subdetectors  Established R&D funds have (with few exceptions) been awarded after intense peer review, often at the international as well as national level. Self-organisation of the community is impressive, so ‘unnecessary duplication’ is at a very low level  We can expect a small reduction of the estimated requirements to result from this tough review process, but it would be dangerous to arbitrarily suppress these careful estimates (from 41 American project leaders) by a large factor

4. 14 April 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 4  However, there are some further factors to consider: Timescales needed for thorough review processes Practicality of ramping up manpower within one year – and need to recruit the best young people coming through over several years Argument that these figures reflect ‘unrestrained estimates’. True, but from the European experience, I think some of the estimates made last year by ‘starving’ American academics will prove to be too low to achieve their Priority 1 goals In reality, there will probably be 1-2 more years for critical ‘big ticket’ R&D than we guessed (we assumed completion by end of FY09)  On balance, we suggest the following profile: FY06:$7M FY07:$10M FY08:$12M FY09:$14M  Thereafter, we suggest 1-2 years of flat funding, with R&D tailing off and pre- production ramping up. Some flexibility will obviously be needed, depending on the actual achievements at that time  Remember, the adventurous detector requirements and minimal experience with linear colliders (SLC alone) argue strongly for two detectors using different technologies for all the major subdetectors [vertex, tracking and (to a lesser extent) calorimetry]. This implies a more extensive world-wide R&D programme, but the cost penalties of not doing this, in terms of physics output, could be enormous. Examples …

5. 14 April 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 5 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 (FY10) (FY11) This makes the realistic assumption of recruiting 15, 20 and 20 people in each of FY07, 08 and 09, then fixed at 110 people (FTEs)

6. 14 April 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 6 (FY11) (FY10) FY09 FY08 FY07 FY06 Precise requirements for equipment budgets are difficult to predict till detailed proposals have been written and refereed

7. 14 April 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 7  Providing this level of support would at long last put the US detector community on a par with the Europeans, in terms of their ability to surmount the great challenges we face, rather than continuing to be to some extent ‘informed spectators’  The creation of the ILC project depends on engaging a strong US particle physics community in the real work – if people are discouraged by lack of funding, how can they be expected to give their wholehearted support?  Solving this problem would still leave our Japanese colleagues at a great disadvantage, particularly as regards equipment budgets, but they too are working hard to ramp up support  This is a great opportunity, not to be missed! (our opinion)