The Norwegian CERN activities 20062011

1
The Norwegian CERN activities 2006-2011

• Manpower, current organisation (1998-2005) and
  experiences
• The remaining years to 2005
• The next period 2006-2011 first thoughts
• Conclusions

2
The Norwegian CERN activities background

• The key to all of it the people
• The Norwegian Particle Physics and Heavy Ion
  community is mainly based at Univ. of Bergen
  (Groups Subatomic (8) and Theory (2), also some
  activity in Applied Physics/Electronics (1)) and
  Oslo (Particle Physics (5), Nuclear Physics
  (22), Theory (4) and Electronics (1)).
• The University Colleges in Bergen (2) and Gjøvik
  (1) are involved Bergen heavily as you have
  seen, Gjøvik less the two last years.
• ISOLDE activities include researchers from the
  the Dep. Of Chemistry in Oslo (2).

3
The Norwegian CERN activities background

• Also involved
• The Institute for Informatics in Oslo is involved
  (2) but less the last years.
• SINTEF-Oslo likewise (independent research
  centre) has been and still is involved in CERN
  projects.
• In Trondheim (NTNU The Norwegian University of
  Science and Technology) the theory group (3) and
  a group for cooling and refrigeration (1) are
  involved.
• We have two main student types around 50/50
  sharing
• instrumentation (hardware) students
• physics (covering from pattern rec. to
  simulation/analysis to theory).
• Currently the student situation is very good in
  Bergen and satisfactory in Oslo (as you have seen
  yesterday).

4
The Norwegian CERN activities background

• The work is organised in four projects covering
  1998-2005 ATLAS (42), ALICE (22), Particle
  Physics Analysis (21) and Heavy Ion Physics
  Analysis (15).
• The total budget is 99 MNOK over 8 years (10.4x8
  CERN-program 16 MNOK from Advanced Equipment
  Program).
• In reality another 7-9 MNOK has been added by
  extra funding to cover ATLAS/ALICE CtoC (4.1M),
  committees (2.4MNOK), technical students
  (1-2MNOK,hopefully), price compensation on
  salaries (1-2MNOK).
• The average budget has therefore been around 13
  MNOK/year.
• 1/3 is allocated to LHC CORE contributions.
  Student grants/Post. Docs and Engineers add up to
  another 1/4. Travel, exploitation, local
  infrastructure consume the rest.
• Note that in the Norwegian University structure
  the post.doc numbers and exploitation funding are
  very small, so the project budgets must include
  both.

5
The Norwegian CERN activities background

• Experiences
• Long term planning and fewer larger project has
  been mostly positive and has increased
  communication, scientific collaboration and
  flexibility - and has certainly also helped us to
  renew the community (i.e replace retiring staff)
  by referring to our CERN commitments (...but this
  is not a completed process as you see) so we
  want to keep these aspects.
• Even with the flexibility we have within projects
  such long terms can be limiting for new
  developments/projects.

6
2003-2005 the remaining years of current period

• Main challenges
• 7.3 MNOK missing for ATLASALICE as Cost to
  Completion. Around 4.1 MNOK found so the problem
  is reduced to 3.2 MNOK.
• Four main components Overruns on our own
  deliverables in ATLAS/ALICE (20), Overrun on
  ATLAS Common projects (40), Missing funding for
  integration task (20), MO starting early (20).
  
• NOTUR program and GRID, very good progress the
  last 2 years (refer to talks yesterday).
• Technological student program was not
  established in 1998 and sorely needed. Now
  starting again. J.Vigen as co-ordinator.
• Define and prepare the program for 2006-2011
  (needs to start discussing NOW and reach maturity
  by mid 2003)
• For example we need to define student grant
  across periods into 2006-2007 otherwise we cannot
  hire from end of this year until end 2005.
• We need to understand LHC start-up phase to
  address missing funds and MO
• The establishment of a new program from 2006 will
  also help significantly to solve the remaining
  problems for 2003-2005 (delay hiring slightly and
  use the fact the MO costs for 2006, 2007 will be
  low compared to 2008 onwards)
• The main balancing act is to solve these
  challenges not depleting our physics analysis and
  simulation activities over the next 5 or so years.

7
2003-2005 the remaining years of current period
8
New period/Program (2006-2011)

• The purpose is to give you a picture of the
  possibilities, constraints and limitations the
  program and organisation (which might turn out
  quite different) will need to be worked out over
  the next year.
• Timeframe most likely defined by ATLAS and ALICE
  MO MoU to cover 2006-2011. This is already
  discussed with the Research Council.
• Manpower and user community can we involve more
  ?
• The Faculties at Bergen and Oslo, and the
  institutes leaders, were involved in the planning
  of the projects with us, the support from them
  has helped us.
• Instrumentation in Oslo naturally will take place
  connected to uTECH (national u-technology program
  in new common lab with SINTEF) and in Bergen also
  with closer contacts to the space and applied
  physics/electronics groups.
• RD for LHC upgrades and TESLA of interest to
  wider community, from experience we know that
  these projects attract instrumentation students.
• The interest in large scale computing and GRID
  beneficial to us.
• Technology transfer (medical imaging for
  example), technical student support (more
  education institutes involved) important to
  handle better.
• Natural to organise our CERN theory activities as
  now - connected to the experimental projects (if
  successful the next years).

9
New period/Program (2006-2011)

• Budget constraints/history
• Norwegian CERN activities were evaluated in
  1997-8, all Norwegian Physics in 2000 by an
  international panel. An overall plan was made
  for Norwegian Physics based on this evaluation
  (2001). In two sentences
• Norwegian CERN physics came out reasonably well.
• The recommendation is to keep CERN physics
  research funding at least at present level (even
  if no new funding to physics, keep CERN program
  at present level)
• Budget framework therefore from this
  (modestrealistic)
• 13 MNOK/year inflation corrected to 15 MNOK/year.
• I.e 15 of CERN contribution.

10
New period/Program (2006-2011)

• LHC analysis The dominating activity.
• For the CORE CERN activities (ATLAS/ALICE) we can
  make some estimates
• 4-5 MNOK ALICE and ATLAS MO and computing.
• MO estimates are known (presented to FAs
  several times, scrutinised, etc) while computing
  is more uncertain.
• For ATLAS the latest estimates show 25 MCHF/year
  which for us would mean 1.4 MNOK/year.
• 2.5 MNOK for post.doc/eng (unless Post.Doc
  funding situation generally improve)
• 2.5 MNOK for PhD.grant (similar comment).
• 3.0 MNOK for exploitation and travel (we need to
  place 2-3 persons at CERN the first years)
  reflects the level we have operated at the last
  years.
• If we including small upgrade projects and
  outreach an additional 1 MNOK will be needed.
• End naturally at 13-14 MNOK based on
  extrapolation from present program.
• Also clear this is a (too) high fraction of the
  overall framework or that we must include more
  activities than pure ATLAS/ALICE in the same
  framework (see next page).

11
New period/Program (2006-2011)

• Smaller projects - some with shorter timescales
  
• The most obvious examples are smaller physics
  analysis and instrumentation activities.
• These could also be included in larger projects
  as mentioned on last page (as we do now).
• On purpose I have not been very specific about
  smaller projects outside CERN or related to CERN
  at this point must be defined by the community
  over the next year.
• We do participate in BABAR and Brahms provide
  good data for analysis students.
• HERA-BDELPHIWA102NA57/WA97 similar but now
  either finished or being completed by 2004.

12
New period/Program (2006-2011)

• Could also be new CERN related projects (i.e
  provide seed money for projects where CERN is one
  but not the main partner) some examples where
  Norwegian Physicists/Engineers are involved
  many presently outside our community
• RD for future projects for LHC upgrade or
  outside LHC - could be general and cover both LHC
  and for example TESLA (example RDXX proposal just
  submitted where UiO (3 persons in electronics
  group)/SINTEF participate).
• Proposal at CERN for LHC detector upgrade RD.
  Tracker RD of interest for us.
• Astro-particle project in coll. with the
  Norwegian Space Physics Program.
• Neutrino physics
• Medical imaging projects EU-expression of
  interest with SINTEF, UiO and INVENTRON
  (Norwegian company with office in St.Genis) or
  the CIMA-collaboration trying to involve us for a
  long time (Compton Camera and PET development).
• Technology Transfer projects (linked to CERN and
  point above).
• Computing and Grid projects (ongoing and going
  well).
• Extended theory networks with CERN as one out of
  several partners (for a wider theory community).
• The purpose would be able to exploit CERN better,
  initiate projects but let them compete freely
  inside other programmes in the long run.
• The budget framework is hard to define but 2 MNOK
  is very modest.

13
New period/Program (2006-2011)

• Technical students 10 students to CERN yearly
  is the goal. If we follow other countries and
  cover 5 months per student this will cost around
  1 MNOK. This is now being proposed, final budget
  sharing to be defined.
• Some general comments/observations
• With 15 MCHf tight even for the CORE LHC projects
  unless the 4-5Mkr initial MO and computing costs
  can be significantly reduced or partly covered
  elsewhere (for computing), or Post.Docs, Ph.D
  grant covered better outside.
• Additional possible sources Combine with GRID,
  utech, technical students support from
  universities .
• The organisation
• For ATLAS/ALICE long term projects preferable.
• For smaller activities there has to be room for
  updated project plans.
• Would be unhealthy (and too rigid), in my
  opinion, to have only two large projects.
• We are limited by budgets but definitely also by
  manpower we cannot do too many things.
• We need to continue to focus on replacing the
  physicists now in their high 60-ties (peak in
  age-profile shown earlier).
• Some potential small project are however
  introducing new Norwegian CERN user groups and
  interesting for this reason in addition to their
  scientific value.

14
Conclusions (1)

• We have had a favourable development compared to
  many of our colleagues in Norwegian Physics
  even if our budgets are low compared to many of
  our European colleagues at least we have a stable
  situation and are allowed to think long term and
  the results are relatively good in evaluations
  and in terms of staff renewal.
• Next period should build on this and the main
  points are
• Need approved framework by second half of next
  year this can probably solve both the remaining
  problems for 1998-2005 and the transfer period
  (grants going across).

15
Conclusions (2)

• Including all activities gets us to around 17-18
  MNOK/year.
• A budget framework of 15 MNOK we think is
  defendable towards the Research Council of three
  reasons
• It covers a CORE CERN program (barely), It is in
  line with recommendations from reviews, It is
  similar in size to the current program.
• One million extra should be added to this
  (referring to yesterdays report).
• There are two ways to get additional resources,
  the Research Council agree to strengthen the CERN
  exploitation or we look at programs related to
  CERN where additional support can be found.
• The community has not discussed the organisation
  but only ATLAS/ALICE is not sufficient for
  healthy Norwegian CERN activity. As a minimum we
  need (my opinion)
• Two wide projects over the full period for
  ATLAS/ALICE completion and physics exploitation.
• Smaller specific projects which can have good
  scientific impact and/or increase the CERN user
  community activities are limited by manpower and
  funding - some limited funding must be foreseen
  (in my opinion).
• A technical student program.