LAUC: findings, observations, recommendations-1

1
LAUC findings, observations, recommendations-1
J. Bisognano, J. H. Harris
Findings LARP incubator role for LAUC
Commendable sense of program responsibility
luminosity ! Filling organizational vacuum in
US Primary liaison to CERN by default CERN is
defining mission need and scope Initiatives for
LAUC chosen in improvisational way Any hope of
LARP influencing CERN decisions? CERN decision
and US CD-n process are mismatched at this
stage Proposed hardware deliverables for
LAUC Schemes presented mainly optimization of
existing technology Separate from fundamental
LARP mission Unfair to expect high end project
performance from creative RD culture of
LARP Completion of LHC MIE project removes
existing project framework
2
LAUC findings, observations, recommendations-2
Recommendations Make name of LAUC
distinguishable from LARP in international
English New protocol for US participation in LHC
accelarator development Define US role Process
for project selection interaction w/ community,
DOE, CERN Establish LAUC project
management Host laboratory Project management
conforming to DOE requirements Define and
control deliverables Careful budget
process Draw from LARP and wider technical
community Extensive reviewing coordinated with
CERN Selection of LAUC projects Present choices
not unreasonable However, CERN needs and desires
not clear Request formal CERN input Funding for
LAUC should be independent of LARP funding