Minutes of the CALICE-UK Steering Board meeting, UCL, 07/10/04 ============================================================== Present: Roger Barlow, Jon Butterworth, Paul Dauncey, Mark Lancaster, Fabrizio Salvatore, David Ward, Nigel Watson, Matthew Wing Phone: Pete Clarke, Chris Hawkes Apologies: Mark Thomson (who tried to call in!) Minutes: Paul CALICE news: Paul showed some slides (see web page) of news items from CALICE. Also on the web page are the latest version (draft 7) of the MoA, the FNAL ECAL testbeam proposal and the AHCAL addendum to this proposal. PPRP proposal preparations: The rest of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of the upcoming PPRP proposal which we are aiming to submit in January. Paul showed some slides (see web page) of the background and required level of information which will be needed. The external influences which need to be factored in are o The detector CDRs and cost estimates are needed by the end of 2006. o The detector TDRs are due in 2008/9, where the year seems to depend on who is giving the date. We should probably use 2009 as the more realistic. The PPRP proposal should therefore refer to this explicitly; the scope of what we propose should match on to how we get from here to the TDR. [Note added after the meeting: the actual dates proposed for various items which were given at the Durham meeting by David Miller are: o Detector costs by 2005 o Detector CDRs by 2007 o Detector LoIs by 2008 o Detector TDRs by 2009 so 2009 seems to be the right date to work to.] We will need some work within several of the non-MAPS workpackages to support the MAPS studies. However, in all cases, these workpackages should be written so that the diode pads are seen as the baseline option and MAPS are not presented as the main work of the workpackage. This will protect us from problems if the MAPS is not (fully) approved or if it is not accepted as the final detector choice. By keeping it a relatively small part of the other workpackages, we keep our options open. Workpackages: Paul showed a couple of slides (see web page) giving a brief overview of the possible scope of two of the workpackages, namely the ones for CALICE and MAPS. It was clear dividing tasks between the CALICE and simulation workpackages in any sensible way will be difficult and somewhat artificial. It was thought that two RA FTEs total would be needed for these two workpackages. We should probably take the approach that, to get the CALICE workpackage approved quickly, then we should put the minimum into it, namely what we asked for previously. One possible exception might be extending George Mavromanolakis' post by a further six months to cover the full extent of the work. The MAPS workpackage scope is quite straightforward, namely to validate the concept in time to present it at the TDR as a viable, proven alternative. The work will be mainly one engineer designing the sensor and this has to be from Renato Turchetta's group in RAL ID to be at all credible. An RA will be needed, but this is probably not full-time. There will be quiet periods when the sensors are being designed and fabricated and then very busy periods of evaluation and beam tests. A rough average of 50% FTE of the RA was thought appropriate. This workpackage might have a large cost, mainly due to the high apparent cost of the RAL ID effort. (There will be less differences between RAL and the Universities in future when the latter go to the full costing model, but we do not need to worry about the implications of this change for the purposes of this proposal.) Matthew showed some slides (see web page) on the DAQ workpackage. There are various ideas around for subpackages and these need to be sorted out into priorities and organised between whichever groups are interested. The cost is also very uncertain at present. Something like 1 FTE of an RA is probably needed, although this is likely to be several fractions of an FTE from several RAS working in different subpackages. Besides the generic longterm R&D for a DAQ system, two other possible subpackages could be to supply readout for the MAPS beam test and for the "final" French VFE chip designs. This latter would tie the work into CALICE and so help to prevent the collaboration evaporating after the current CALICE programme finishes. However, it will require us to get in contact with the French groups at Orsay who are designing the longterm VFE ASIC asap so as to figure out what could be done in the next three years and how it would be scheduled. Nigel and David showed some slides (see web page) on the simulation and physics workpackage. They have a very detailed and complete list of the work which will be needed. For completeness, they also included the tasks for the DESY beam test, although (we hope) most of this will be complete by the time the new proposal starts in April. They have also made a start on the milestones and schedule. With GeorgeM's RA in the CALICE workpackage, the other RA for this work would need to be included in the simulation workpackage. It was agreed that any physics studies should concentrate on benchmark channels for detector evaluation rather than on more general things like SUSY searches. Along the lines of keeping the diode pads as the baseline option, then the active detector technology subpackage should be general hardware modelling rather than specifically MAPS modelling, even if the latter is most of the work of this subpackage in practise. Roger summarised his thoughts on a potential mechanical/thermal workpackage. Manchester would be interested in this work given their expertise in detector construction built up from the Atlas silicon tracker work there. Ray Thompson and Steve Snow would be available for this effort. Roger would lead this work at Manchester as Stefan Soldner-Rembold does not look likely to join. One issue here is that there is already a significant amount of work going on in France (and to some extent Korea?) on the mechanics and thermal cooling. For example, see slide 11 of Dan Bowerman's talk to the PRC in May: http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/calice/official/040527prc/bowerman.ppt (Note, the "Future DAQ ideas" mentioned here refers to the UK work.) This is in many ways a good thing, as starting R&D in this area would tie us and the French groups closer together within CALICE. However, it does mean we will need to coordinate the workpackage closely with them and hence get in contact asap to define a programme. Roger and the technical people from Manchester will need to visit the Ecole Polytechnique groups to start this process before the end of October. Roger thought the order of magnitude for the requisitions of such a workpackage would be small, around 20k total, and would not require extra effort beyond that available from the rolling grant. Some of the subpackage items could include o How to connect together PCBs within minimal extra thickness, if the required ~1.6m boards could not be fabricated in one piece. o How the thermal issues of MAPS compare with VFE ASICs. Again, it was thought that we should keep the silicon diode pads as the baseline design and not put all our eggs in the MAPS basket. Group interests: The potential interests of each group were then tabulated (see web page). All groups would like to be involved in some combination of the CALICE and simulation workpackages. There are no rolling grant RAs available for this work so the second RA needed beyond GeorgeM would have to be funded from the bid, wherever it was based. In addition: o UCL would be interested in leading the DAQ workpackage; they have some engineering effort available on the rolling grant from Matt Warren and Martin Postranecky but the main RA for this would need to be requested as part of the bid. They also have a small amount of mechanical engineering effort available which could contribute to the mechanical/thermal work. o Imperial would be interested in leading the MAPS workpackage and would also like to contribute to the DAQ work. They have an engineer and some technical support available on the rolling grant for either or both of these. Again, the main RA would need to come from the bid. There is also a fraction of the GridPP portal post, held by Gidon Moont, at Imperial which is for small experiments, with CALICE explicitly named as one of these. Hence, he will contribute to the simulation software. o Cambridge would like to lead some combination of the CALICE and simulation workpackages. They could also contribute to DAQ work. o Birmingham would like to lead one of the MAPS, CALICE and simulation workpackages. They have a strong interest in contributing to MAPS to use the expertise which will be available from the Atlas silicon tracker work. They have existing cleanroom facilities which would be availble for this work which are described at http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/general/SiliconLab/ o Manchester would be interested in leading the mechanical/thermal workpackage as outlined above. They may also have an interest in the DAQ work through their engineer Scott Kolya. o RHUL is currently only Fabrizio at some fraction of his FTE although they may have technical effort available later. For now, they would be able to contribute to the CALICE and simulation workpackages. Fabrizio will report back to the RHUL group on what we are planning so they can see where else they may contribute longer term. o Edinburgh would be interested in simulation (for the computing/eScience side) and possibly DAQ (from the HEP side). Pete needs to talk to the HEP group to find out more about their interests. He thought they would need to think in terms of at least 0.5 of an academic FTE if they were serious about this long term. However, as he has only just started at Edinburgh, he has not yet had time to determine what the group wants to do in any detail. o PPD are in a difficult position as Nigel will start fulltime permanently at Birmingham in April. Hence, there is no one currently in post at RAL to define the group interests. Nigel thought Ken Peach would want the group to be involved with MAPS, particularly as the main engineering work would be in RAL ID. It is not clear if anyone will be hired, let alone have started work, by the time the bid is submitted or even discussed by the PPRP or Science Committee, so this needs to be handled carefully. Nigel will talk to Ken Peach later in October. The obvious leaders for the DAQ workpackage are UCL (Matthew) and for the mechanical/thermal workpackage are Manchester (Roger). For the moment, Cambridge (David) and Birmingham (Nigel) will work together leading the CALICE and simulation workpackages and Imperial (Paul) and Birmingham (Nigel) the MAPS workpackages. The next step is to define the workpackages in more detail, which needs to take place by the end of October. Rough costing: Paul had put together a simple Excel spreadsheet to get a rough estimate of the cost of the proposal (see web page). This was updated with the above information. The totals, around 400k per year of new money and 650k per year total cost to PPARC, were not thought off-scale from PPARC's expectations. The PPARC Roadmap includes a line for ILC detector R&D (at a level not known to the people at the meeting) which needs to be shared between CALICE and LCFI. LCFI are running at roughly 1M per year, so we are at a smaller level than them. For comparison, CALICE has spent an average of 320k new money, 440k total per year. Also, our SoI said we would need to build up to a requisitions cost of around 500k per year by the time of prototyping, which is now thought to be 2010. Hence, including effort and travel on top of this says we are well below what we said we would need somewhat later and so we are not out of line with this on a six year ramp up. Having firmed up the workpackages, we need to get a somewhat more accurate cost estimate and send this to Janet Seed and Science Committee to warn them of the likely level. We will aim to do this in early November. If this elicits a very negative response (i.e. if it is very high compared with their expectation), then we should rethink. Otherwise, we will then go ahead. We should aim to get this response before the next meeting. Next meeting: Wed 10 November at UCL in the morning. There will be a CALICE-UK general meeting in the afternoon.