---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:07:40 -0600
From: "Gollin, George" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: LCRD, UCLC, DOE, NSF funding update
Dear Colleagues,
We have UCLC/LCRD news! This message is on the long side, but please bear
with us. It contains the following sections:
1. Introduction
2. Information concerning detector physics projects
3. Information concerning accelerator physics projects
Take note: groups that have not participated previously in UCLC/LCRD are
welcome
to submit proposals.
We will need to receive all documents (both for new
proposals and progress reports for ongoing work) by January 21.
FY04 awards ranged from $8k to $72k. The average award, including both
accelerator
and detector efforts, was ~$35k. Please use this as a guideline in setting
the
scope of your proposals.
We are making good progress! Please contact us for clarification of various
details as questions arise.
Best regards,
George Gollin
(for the LCRD and UCLC organizers)
============================================================
1. Introduction
We have received enough information from NSF and DOE concerning ILC detector
and accelerator support so that it is time to prepare your documents!
For most groups this year's process will resemble what has been done
previously. You will write a report describing your project's goals and
progress. Since time is short, if you would like the ALCPG (or accelerator)
working group leaders to read your report to suggest improvements, please
arrange this directly with the appropriate WG leader so that we you can
submit your revised document by the January 21 due date.
We'll assemble the proposals into a hefty Big
Document (probably bound as separate volumes for accelerator and detector
projects this time). Big Doc will be transmitted to the USLCSG which, in
turn, will release it to the funding agencies for their consideration.
As before, common sense (backstopped by emails and phone calls for
clarification when necessary!) will serve us well and allow the process to
proceed smoothly. You should keep in mind that overly-long documents are
fatiguing for reviewers and grant monitors to read. If you feel you need to
write a much longer report than last year's, consider formatting it as a
principal document of reasonable length followed by an appendix containing
more detailed exposition. But you are likely to find it natural to base
this year's document on last year's, in which case the length will not be
an issue.
The details of the process are somewhat different this year. This comes
about primarily for two reasons: DOE and NSF have made good progress on
streamlining the review process, allowing the agencies to collaborate more
closely. In addition, the duration of previously awarded support varies
from group to group (some accelerator projects were granted three years'
funding, for example) so some groups will be submitting progress reports,
rather than proposals for new funding.
One convenience for participating groups is that Big Doc will come closer to
actually serving as the funding proposal this year: we may not need to
submit (as supplemental funding requests) individual projects separately
to the DOE. The details need further clarification.
Both funding agencies will support ILC R&D.
Last year's Big Doc can be found here:
http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/LCRD/pdf_docs/LCRD_UCLC_Big_Doc/.
We are going to see the university-based R&D program becoming more and more
closely integrated with the international design effort during the coming
year. This is a good thing!
============================================================
2. Information concerning detector physics projects
Thank you for your patience in waiting for an announcement of the
process for Linear Collider Detector R&D Proposals. We can now inform
you of the schedule, and some of the requirements. We expect to provide
further information in the coming weeks.
Proposals will need to be submitted to George Gollin by January 21.
Anyone can submit through this process, independent of your source of
base support. Small labs are eligible to participate in this program,
and they are urged to do this by collaborating with one or more
universities, including opportunities for research by postdocs
and graduate students.
The same master proposal, composed of the collection of
individual detector R&D proposals, will be submitted to both DOE and
NSF from one university. The US Linear Collider Steering Group will
designate which university, likely the University of Oregon.
Proposals can include requests for support of post-docs, with the
understanding that out-year commitments are subject to the availability
of funds.
Your proposal should include the following:
1. Report on progress of past R&D. This is requested even if this
effort was not supported by this program in the past.
2. Proposal for future R&D; durations of up to 3 years are possible.
Budget requests for all years must be included.
3. Discussion on how this project fits into an integrated linear
collider detector concept, ideally one of the active efforts
(specify).
Please identify explicitly the sub-system topic your proposal relates to.
Proposals should be 6-10 pages long. If you find it necessary to submit
a longer document, you should divide it into the main portion of 6-10
pages, with an appendix.
The USLCSG will create an Advisory Committee to review and prioritize the
proposals. The advisory committee report will be transmitted to DOE and
NSF. DOE and NSF will subsequently conduct their own joint review.
At the end of the review process it will not be necessary this year for
individual university groups to send supplemental funding requests to the
agencies to receive R&D support: detector support from DOE and NSF will be
passed to an administrative body, sited at the master university,
that will disburse funds to the individual groups. Final reports
will also be collected by the university and submitted together.
This is an exciting time for the ILC. We are eager to see your excellent
proposals.
============================================================
3. Information concerning accelerator physics projects
Gerry Dugan, Jim Whitmore, Dave Sutter, and Bruce Strauss have been
discussing accelerator R&D project support from NSF and DOE. There has
evolved a specific proposal for the accelerator work, similar to the
way the detector work will be handled.
The main differences from the detector scheme is that the DOE
does not want a single, joint proposal managed by one university
on behalf of all the participating institutions (this is what Cornell
does for UCLC), but rather to receive
individual proposals from each investigator for each subproject. So,
the plan is the following: for any new proposals (excluding the
currently funded 3 year DOE proposals), there would be a set of
individual submissions from each investigator to the DOE for ALL new
projects, and there would be a single submission from Cornell
to the NSF which included ALL new projects
(as subcontracts, the way we did it for UCLC this year).
DOE and NSF would jointly review these two essentially identical
submissions to both agencies, just as they do with the detector. They
would make joint decisions on funding of subprojects, and then the
funding would be done for those supported on DOE money via the
individual investigator grants, or those supported on NSF money via the
Cornell grant.
Just as for the detector case, before the identical proposals are
submitted to the agencies, there would a USLCSG-sponsored review and
prioritization process, which would indicate the community's view of
the priority of the subprojects, and this information would be passed
on to the agencies for their use during their review process.
Your proposal should include the following:
1. Report on progress of past R&D, if you have past funding.
2. Proposal for future R&D; durations of up to 3 years are possible.
Support for post-docs may be included, with the understanding that
out-year commitments are subject to the availability of funds.
3. Discussion on how this project fits into the global linear collider
accelerator R&D effort.
Please identify explicitly the sub-system topic your proposal relates to.
Proposals should be 6-10 pages long. If you find it necessary to submit
a longer document, you should divide it into the main portion of 6-10
pages, with an appendix.
The time scale for preparing the new accelerators proposals is
the same as for the detector, unless we see that this is impossibly
short.
The currently funded DOE proposals will need to submit progress
reports as is always the case.
We would like to assemble the collection of proposals and progress
reports into the Big Document, holding to the same schedule as for the
detector projects.
============================================================
