[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Main Index]

[lcphys 372] A personal input to the discussion on the Roadmap for the LC detectors RE: The Roadmap for ILC Detectors

Subject:   [lcphys 372] A personal input to the discussion on the Roadmap for the LC detectors RE: The Roadmap for ILC Detectors
From:   "Takeshi Matsuda" <takeshi.matsuda@xxxxxx>
Date:   Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:00:11 +0900

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 from 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: 山本 均 [mailto:yhitoshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:28 PM
To: lcacfa
Cc: Richard Francois; Brau Jim
Subject: [lcphys 369] 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