> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:45:12 -0400 > From: Ritchie Patterson > To: varelas@uic.edu, hedin@niu.edu, Arthur Maciel , Randal Ruchti , Ian Shipsey , avrutsky@ns2.eng.wayne.edu, heintz@buphy.bu.edu, pskubic@ou.edu, radeka@bnl.gov, wayne.1@nd.edu, cinabro@mail.lns.cornell.edu, steven.e.csorna@vanderbilt.edu, baringer@ukans.edu, Keith Riles , Dhiman Chakraborty , Ritchie Patterson , giovanni@physics.wayne.edu, rsg@lns.cornell.edu, Mike Hildreth , Jay Hirshfield , poling@umn.edu, zutshi@fnal.gov, gwwilson@ku.edu, hsp3@cornell.edu, dpp@lns.cornell.edu, mcfarlan@jlab.org, gerber@uic.edu, lkg@mail.lns.cornell.edu, Don Hartill , jae@mail.lns.cornell.edu, Gerald Dugan , adams@uic.edu, Klaus Honscheid , Rene Bellwied , Jim Alexander , clbohn@fnal.gov, bibo.feng@vanderbilt.edu, b.gabella@vanderbilt.edu, manuel@nicadd.niu.edu, dlr@cesr10.lns.cornell.edu, oreglia@hep.uchicago.edu, daniela bortoletto , Keith Baker , gblazey@niu.edu, zedlam@ku.edu, lissauer@bnl.gov, blucher@hep.uchicago.edu, mtingwa@mit.edu, jeff.martoff@temple.edu, abean@ukans.edu > Cc: Maury Tigner > Subject: Report from Victoria Dear UCLC Folks, At last week's meeting in Victoria, we had the opportunity to discuss funding for LC R&D with Marv Goldberg (NSF) and Jim Reidy (DOE). We also had a UCLC meeting on Saturday afternoon. Here are the main conclusions from these gatherings: - The NSF would like to find a method of joint funding with the DOE for FY05, though it's unclear what form this will take. Marv suggested, for example, "setting aside" funds for the LC and then convening a joint NSF-DOE panel to allocate them. But it's not a shoe-in -- further conversation revealed that differences in rules, particularly about qualified panelists, could spoil this plan. In the end, Marv and Jim Reidy agreed that the two agencies should hold intensive discussions about how joint funding might be carried out this year, with Jim Reidy guesstimating that a final plan might emerge around the end of September. - While we are waiting for the agencies to devise a plan for proposal submission this fall, those of us with one-year funding or no funding can revise our individual project descriptions. Both Marv and Jim Brau emphasized that these should be "fresh". They should also be tuned to address R&D issues that are high priority. This will help us all by strengthening our package, and will markedly increase the chances of each project's being funded. - Given other demands on the US budget for the next couple of years, it's clear that funding will continue to be tight at both agencies in FY05 and FY06. In this environment, projects that are less than urgent are unlikely to receive support. - Marv recommends that if our LC project is relevant to future machines other than the LC, we should say so in the project description. Doing so will enhance its "Broader Impact". - Marv suggested that we submit subsets of the detector work to the "Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)" Program at the NSF (see http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04511/nsf04511.htm ). The D0 collaboration has successfully used this avenue to carry out several upgrades. - Keith Riles suggested that we divide the detector proposal into several separate proposals this fall so that we'd have more pages available to describe our plans. As you may remember, last year we were limited to a scant few pages for each area. - Some of the NSF/DOE incompatibilities will evaporate after LC research has been "projectized" a la Atlas/CMS, because then there will be a project manager and central office allocating funds. But projectizing is a big deal (even if you can pronounce it) and it is unrealistic to think of doing it this year. - Next year, following the imminent technology choice for the accelerator, the Global Design Effort will be underway. In principle, all linear collider accelerator R&D will be co-ordinated through this central Global Design group. This group is expected to set R&D priorities which will impact the direction of UCLC and LCRD accelerator R&D. Exactly how this will work is not clear now, but will be worked out in the coming year. - In the long run, substantial NSF funding for the LC will have to come through the "Major Research Equipment (MRE)" program, which covers projects in the range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Examples include LIGO and RSVP. An MRE grant is likely to have the best shot if it leads to a particular accelerator and/or detector component that the NSF can call its own. Our interests are now very diverse, as they should be at this point, but we can begin to ponder how we might bring such focus in the coming years. During the workshop, we saw compelling cases made both for building the LC promptly, and for the urgency of LC R&D. Marv was there, and we can hope that he came away with the same message. best, Maury, Gerry and Ritchie ------------------------------------------------ Ritchie Patterson Lab for Elementary Particle Physics Newman Lab, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 (607)255-4374, (607)254-2774