 |
 |
Dear All, The roadmap proposed by the WWS co-chairs (*) seems to imply early selection of detectors and collaborations at the ILC but is rather ambiguous, thereby causing some authenticity issue and generating concern for openness to newcomers as has been pointed out. (*) http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/getFile.py/access?contribId=65&sessionId =11&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=1212 http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=4&sessi onId=13&confId=1390 Below I personally try to formulate the bases of discussion on the roadmap toward ILC experiments. There seem to be two basic approaches toward the approval and the construction of ILC detectors: (1) the traditional approach and (2) a new approach explained below. The traditional approach goes as follows: (a) Upon the establishment of an international body responsible for the construction and operation of the ILC (hereafter called the ILC Lab), the ILC Lab calls for LOIs for the two experiments thereat. (b) The PAC, organized by the ILC Lab, reviews the LOIs. The ILC Lab approves two LOIs and asks the collaborations to submit their TDRs in one or two years. The ILC Lab may also ask the collaborations to accept new members for their TDR’s. (c) This traditional approach is fair in the spirit that it is open not only to the current small ILC detector community but also to the rest of the world HEP community including those who are currently tied up with the LHC experiments. In this traditional approach, physicists with intention for LOI submission are supposed to self-organize a potential collaboration and carry out their detector R&D and design study, so as to win the competition and to be prepared for the transition from the LOI to a TDR in the rather short time. This was what happened in the large accelerator projects such as LEP and LHC. Potential collaborations shall certainly need a working schedule given by the ICFA-ILCSC, and also sufficient support, which matches the schedule, for the detector R&D and design study. The new approach is to enable the early but fair selection of detectors and collaborations taking into account practical needs to get sufficient supports for the ILC detector study, which in turn require compliance to various funding systems of different countries: (a) Prior to the establishment of the ILC Lab, which is unlikely to take place at least for a few years from now, the ICFA-ILCSC, the only existing international body with authority to play the role of the future ILC Lab for the world HEP community, officially calls for LOIs for the two experiments at the ILC. The submission of LOIs is due in 2008, which allows sufficient preparation time for any potential collaboration. (b) The ICFA-ILCSC selects a few (maybe two) LOIs, based on the recommendation by an international detector advisory group (IDAG), and asks the collaborations to submit TDRs (of different levels if necessary) with deadlines in accordance with the progress of the ILC project. (c) As soon as the ILC Lab is established, the ILC Lab and its PAC replace the ICFA-ILCSC and the IDAG and continue the process. As with the original roadmap proposed by the WWS co-chairs, the risks in this approach include (i) the detector selection to be made based on most probably incomplete technical inputs from would-be-still-ongoing R&Ds, (ii) foreseeable impacts by physics results form the LHC, (iii) unexpected delay of the ILC project promotion, and (iv) possible difficulty in coordination with funding agencies of different counties. This new approach, however, differs from the roadmap by the WWS co-chairs that it is carried out by the ICFA-ILCSC, which is supposed to represent the world HEP community and hence having authenticity and bearing responsibility for the risks, and that it provides equal opportunity to any potential users of the ILC. I personally prefer the traditional approach, and I believe it would work alright also for the ILC. It is indeed unusual to decide on the experiments before any sure indication of approval of the ILC project. Nevertheless the new approach is also well-defined and practicable. Best regards, Takeshi MATSUDA IPNS/KEK -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Brau Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:51 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: The Roadmap for ILC Detectors Dear Colleague, We think that it is important and useful to draw your attention on some recent issues about the future of detector activities on ILC. These issues were publicly debated during the ILC ACFA meeting in Beijing. The roadmap drafted by the WWS-OC and the reactions they have triggered in these debates were presented at ILCSC, the international body which is surveying the WWS activities. You will find an attached document sent to the co-Chairs of the WWS International Organizing Committee by the chairman of ILCSC. In this document ILCSC is urging us to keep pace with the accelerator schedule which means producing Engineering Design Reports for two detectors by 2010. To achieve this goal, the WWS co-chairs have started regular meetings with representatives of the four concepts and intend to present conclusions during LCWS07 in DESY. Best regards, The WWS co-chairs, Jim Brau, Hitoshi Yamamoto and Francois Richard -- James E. Brau Physics Department and Center for High Energy Physics 1274 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1274 (541) 346-4766