Neutrino Factory Design Study

1
Neutrino Factory Design Study

• Introduction - Rob Edgecock (30)
• Proton Driver - Roland Garoby (20)
• Target - Roger Bennett (20)
• Collection - Jean-Eric Campagne (20)
• MICE - Alain Blondel (20)
• FFAGs - Francois Meot (20)
• Physics and Detectors - Mauro Mezzetto (20)
• Accelerator - Helmut Haseroth (30)
• Discussion

2
Steering Group
Director Ken Peach Coordinator Rob
Edgecock Japanese representative Yoshi
Mori US representative Mike Zisman Proton
Driver Roland Garoby Chris
Prior Targetry Roger Bennett Jacques
Dumarchez MICE Alain Blondel John
Cobb FFAGs Francois Meot Klaus
Bongardt? Design Engineering Helmut
Haseroth Rob Edgecock Paolo
Strolin Vittorio Palladino
Physics Pilar Hernandez Mauro Mezzetto
3
Plans..

• Aim of the meeting presentation of preliminary
  ideas for work to be included
• Get feedback
• This must follow the call rules completely!
• Independent assessment of proposal will be
  arranged
• Plans finalised by 21st January
• All transparencies to me before CERN closes
  please!
• Rules..

4
Rules..

• EC will give 1-10M
• Maximum of 50 of total cost
• Capital investments are excluded
• In addition, EC wants to spend money on RD -
  concrete, etc, completely excluded - off the
  shelf hardware minimised (lt50)
• Third party (US Japan) resources excluded
• If work depends on third parties, they have to
  sign contract
• Infrastructure is new, but FS and RD must also
  be new
• Evolution from existing equipment is allowed
• 2-4 years duration, but longer possible if
  justified

5
Assessment..
Assessment in 4 categories.

• European added value of the new
  infrastructure - the extent of the European
  significance and interest of the proposed
  infrastructure, in particular in terms of the
  needs of potential users
• Scientific and technological excellence the
  extent to which - the proposed new
  infrastructure is scientifically and
  technologically original and innovative - the
  proposed study or work is scientifically and
  technologically well structured, also in relation
  to the overall development plans of the new
  infrastructure

6
Assessment..

• Relevance to the objectives of the scheme the
  extent to which - there is a clear
  scientific and technological need for the
  proposed feasibility study or technical
  preparatory work - the proposed study or
  work is capable of exploring the funding and,
  where appropriate, the regional dimensions of
  the proposed infrastructure
• Quality of the management the extent to
  which - the project management and the
  competence of each partner are appropriate for
  the intended study or work - there
  is a clear description and justification of the
  corresponding budget, divided by tasks and by
  participants

7
Assessment..

• Each marked out 5
• Each must get gt 3
• Average gt 3.5
• For IA, only gt 4.5 was funded
• Design Studies expected to be more difficult
• We have to be very careful!

8
Timescales
Form Steering Group Done
Form Work Package teams Started
Work Package teams formed 12th December 2003
1st plans/WP 18th December 2003
Firmed up plans, outline of 16th January 2003
proposal, 1st cost and schedule
Start writing final version 22nd January 2004
Final editing starts 14th February 2004
Finish proposal 23rd February 2004
Submit proposal 4th March 2004, 5pm!
9
Final complication
ECFA 3 DS 3 calls ? 1 DS/call LC has
highest priority ? 1st call NF next priority ?
2nd call Many reasons why we should submit in 1st
call - LHC upgrade, Frejus,.., in later
calls - approved DS delayed to later calls -
beta beams in this call - LC may not be
ready - funding required now WDS
already falling behind need CDR by
2010 - if assessment not effected, nothing to
lose Our decision, but we cant ignore
ECFA/ESGARD Assuming for now we submit in 1st
call ESGARD meeting is probably too late